Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ISLE OF WIGHT BILL

Amendments agreed to.

To be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SERVICES

Prescription Charges

Mr. James Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the cost of a prescription in August 1979; and what has been the percentage increase since then, taking account of his statement to the House of 10 March.

The Minister for Health (Mr. Barney Hayhoe): If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the prescription charge, the charge in August 1979 was 45p, and the prescription charge in 1986–87 will be 389 per cent. higher.

Mr. Hamilton: I remind the right hon. Gentleman that since 1979 prescription charges have risen by 1,000 per cent. Need I remind him that many of the 25 per cent. who have to pay the full prescription price are on earnings only a shade above supplementary benefit level or family income supplement? In many instances people are paying not just for one prescription but for two or three. That is bound to have an adverse effect on good health. What does the Minister intend to do about it?

Mr. Hayhoe: Seventy-five per cent. of prescriptions are fully exempt and about 5 per cent., of those who require regular medication, are covered by season tickets. Less than one prescription in five attracts the full charge. The hon. Gentleman was being over-selective in suggesting that all those people are just above the limit below which they would be exempt.

Mr. Galley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the present system is nonsense? Seventy-five per cent. of the population pay no prescription charges, and whether or not payment is made bears no relation to income. If people are exempted for a particular disease, that exemption takes into account all their prescriptions. Will my right hon. Friend agree to review the whole system in the near future?

Mr. Hayhoe: The British Medical Association has recently written to me suggesting that there should be a general review. My officials will be meeting representatives of the BMA fairly soon. Certain pledges have been made about prescription and other charges;and, of course, I do not resile from those pledges.

Mr. Kirkwood: If the Minister undertakes the review, will he give urgent attention to one of the consequences of the elevenfold increase, namely, that the cost of prescriptions to the patient is more than the cost to the National Health Service? It is scandalous that nearly one third—20 million—of the 64 million prescriptions issued cost the Government less than is charged for them.

Mr. Hayhoe: The average cost of prescriptions is somewhat over double the prescription charge; but of course within that average some will cost much more than double and others, as the hon. Gentleman has suggested, will cost less than is charged.

Parallel Drug Imports

Mr. Michael Morris: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what action he is proposing to take to stop unlicensed parallel drug imports.

Mr. Hayhoe: All such allegations are investigated fully. My Department is currently prosecuting two companies for alleged offences involving parallel imports. It is considering other cases where criminal proceedings will be taken if the evidence warrants this. Wholesale dealers have recently been warned that they also risk losing their licences if they market unlicensed medicinal products. Lists of parallel imported products which have been granted licences have been issued to help pharmacists identify products offered to them.

Mr. Morris: That is a reasonable beginning. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the number of scrips at present met by parallel imports is about 7 per cent.? The cost to the nation is just over £100 million and there is a loss to the Exchequer of about £30 million or £40 million in terms of remuneration to pharmacists, tax, and so on. Is he further aware that although only two companies have been prosecuted there is clear evidence that tens of companies are slapping labels on to certain products and producing other products of different colours and shapes? Should not more urgent action be taken by the Department to deal with this matter?

Mr. Hayhoe: If my hon. Friend has evidence, I hope that he will let my Department have it, and I hope that those who advise and give information to him about these matters will do likewise. My hon. Friend will realise that what was called the high discount scheme that was introduced by my predecessor was challenged and declared to be contrary to European law. My officials and I are urgently considering what further action may be possible to recover excessive discounts.

Sir Dudley Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that although he rightly demands the highest quality for the production and labelling of British medicines, he does not appear to be doing the same for foreign, imported products? Why not?.

Mr. Hayhoe: My hon. Friend is wrong to suggest that there is a reduction in the requirements relating to labelling and quality. I repeat that anybody who markets an imported, unlicensed medicine may be liable to prosecution for committing an offence under the Medicines Act 1985.

Social Security Reform

Mr. Colvin: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received about the future role of the voluntary sector following the publication of the Green Paper and the White Paper on the reform of social security; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): A number of voluntary organisations have written in about how the Green and White Paper proposals will affect them. Some have subsequently discussed their views with me and other Ministers.

Mr. Colvin: What role does my hon. Friend envisage for the voluntary sector in a reformed welfare state, particularly in the light of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer's recent Budget recommendations on changes in the tax regime for voluntary charitable giving?

Mr. Newton: I expect that the measures that were announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which I very much welcome, will enable the voluntary organisations to play an even more important part in the general welfare of the community than they already play. It is a contribution which in its own humble way the Department of Health and Social Security will seek to promote by its grants and policies.

Mr. Wigley: Will the Minister confirm that as part of this change the Government do not intend to transfer any statutory responsibility from either the social services or the health services to the voluntary sector?

Mr. Newton: There is no proposal to transfer responsibilities between the sectors. The hon. Gentleman knows that one of our major aims is to promote partnership between the two, because we believe that that is the best way to meet the needs of many people.

Mr. Stern: Is my hon. Friend aware that local authorities in certain areas are using Government policies, such as care in the community, to reduce the role of the voluntary sector? Will he issue guidance in areas where there have been major changes in social policy to encourage existing voluntary groups and new voluntary groups to take a full part?

Mr. Newton: We shall do everything that we can to ensure the success of the partnership to which I have referred. Experience differs from one local authority to another. Alongside those to which my hon. Friend has referred are others which are accused of trying to push more on to the voluntary sector. A proper partnership remains the right answer.

Mr. Meacher: Does it not say a good deal about this Government's policies that a week ago a Tory Budget yet again gave away major tax concessions to the rich by abolishing the tax even on major lifetime gifts and by further big tax cuts for directors on £30,000 a year, but that at the same time the Social Security Bill will cut the benefit of 2,500 very severely disabled people by no less than £60 a week and also, by major changes to the disregards, will cut the income of voluntary support workers and of those who care for them? Is it not absolutely and abundantly clear that social security reform under this Government is simply a fig leaf for redistribution from the poor to the rich?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman is increasingly stuck in a very boring groove. He knows quite well that the illustrative figures published with the White Paper show that the overwhelming majority of the least well-off disabled people will gain substantially.

Health Education Officers

Mr. Dormand: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what further action he proposes to take on the report "The Recruitment, Training and Development of Health Education Officers".

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Ray Whitney): The report was reconsidered last year under the aegis of the National Health Service Training Authority, and new arrangements to oversee the training of health education officers are now being examined by the authority, the Health Education Council and the Department.

Mr. Dormand: I recognise the fine work that is done by the Health Education Council, but does the Minister agree that health education officers play a crucial role? Will the Minister clarify what he said? Does he mean that the Kirby committee will be reconvened? If not, will he consider reconvening that committee, because so much remains to be done with regard to the recruitment, training and development of health education officers? I hope that that will be done soon.

Mr. Whitney: I am happy to reaffirm that the Department recognises the necessary role of health education officers. I assure the hon. Gentleman that progress to improve the training of these officers is going apace.

Mr. Kennedy: I am an ashamed smoker who is still trying to give up, but failing abysmally. In view of the announcements that were made yesterday by the Department about the extra action to be taken against the promotion of cigarette smoking, I put it to the Minister that the balance between the funds that the Health Education Council enjoys and the amounts that the tobacco companies can spend on advertising should be substantially redressed. If that is not done the Department's action will be no more than a cosmetic exercise. Will the Minister take steps to redress that balance?

Mr. Whitney: Our record on reducing smoking is good. This subject will be covered by later questions on the Order Paper.

Mr. Key: Does my hon. Friend agree that the role of the Health Education Council must extend into areas of drug and substance abuse? Action should start with young children of primary school age. Does he accept that it is time we stopped the idea that by telling people about drugs we shall enhance their interest in them? Finally, does my hon. Friend agree that we must achieve a completely different attitude in young people from primary school age?

Mr. Whitney: Both the Health Education Council and the Department are active in this area. I commend to my hon. Friend the excellent videos, for use in schools, which we released some weeks ago.

Orthopaedic Operations

Dr. Marek: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the average length of time patients have to wait for orthopaedic operations.

Mr. Hayhoe: In 1983 the estimated median interval between placement on a waiting list and admission for orthopaedic surgery was 13 weeks.

Dr. Marek: Is the Minister aware that, for example, in the West Surrey and North-East Hampshire district health authority—the figures are not untypical—the waiting list for orthopaedic operations in December 1983 was 1,027 and in 1985 it was 1,350? That is an increase of 30 per cent. Is he further aware that the waiting time in that district health authority is four to five years? Therefore, does the Minister agree that his figures are fiddled and gerrymandered in the same way as the figures that his Department produced about the so-called growth in the Health Service? The National Health Service, far from being safe in his hands, is dust and ashes in them. It is a disgraceful situation. What does the Minister intend to do about it?

Mr. Hayhoe: It is clear that the hon. Gentleman has been carefully selective in his choice of figures, which may or may not be accurate. Between 1978 and 1984, in the trauma and orthopaedic specialty, there have been 75,000 extra cases coming forward—an increase of 17 per cent. The waiting lists, despite that increased load, have remained the same. Perhaps the most important aspect is that the waiting lists for urgent treatment have come down by 14 per cent. compared with the position under the Labour Government.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Does my right hon. Friend think that the private sector can assist in reducing waiting lists, and to what extent is it used to do that?

Mr. Hayhoe: Health authorities have freedom to make arrangements with the private sector if it makes cost-effective sense to do so. I know that that has been done to advantage in particular areas.

Dr. Roger Thomas: What progress is being made in improving the orthopaedic consultant-registrar proportion, as recommended by the Select Committee three years ago? Has progress been retarded by the new, more stringent rules regarding immigrant doctors staying in this country?

Mr. Hayhoe: The new and, as the hon. Gentleman said, more stringent rules that apply to immigrant doctors in the NHS are being warmly welcomed as making a positive contribution to solving the long-standing problem of medical manpower. I am consulting the professions on these issues. I hope that we shall make real progress in resolving what has been a long-standing problem.

Mrs. Currie: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of my constituents in South Derbyshire have been worried by the recent statements of orthopaedic surgeons working at the local hospital in Burton-on-Trent? May I convey to my right hon. Friend the fact that the surgeons are saying that orthopaedic posts cannot be filled in our local hospital because of the Government's ruling on overseas doctors, that money is available and posts exist, but that the home-grown version will not come to our part of the world? Does he agree that that is absolute nonsense, and will he look into the matter?

Mr. Hayhoe: I am not aware of the position to which my hon. Friend refers. My superficial reaction is that that does not make sense, because those restrictions do not apply at present, but they will apply some time in future.

Mr. Pavitt: Is the Minister aware that at a hospital not far from the Chamber the waiting list for a hip replacement operation is 5¼ years? Is he further aware that the rationalisation of acute beds in district general hospitals meant that last week a teaching hospital telephoned 13 hospitals to take an emergency case, and that only the fourteenth had a bed available? This is a crisis. Will the Minister do something about it?

Mr. Hayhoe: I am well aware that compared with the position under the Labour Government—[Interruption.] I realise that the Labour party does not like these comparisons being made, but it ill befits it to criticise us when its performance was so much worse. There has been an increase of about 33 per cent. in the number of hip replacement operations being carried out, and the average or median waiting time for that operation is the same now as it was then, despite the significant increase in the numbers being operated upon.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Is it not misleading to refer to the average waiting time for orthopaedic operations when some are so minor that waiting is no hardship, while others are so painful that treatment is urgently required? Is it not true that to have an average covering those two categories is wholly misleading?

Mr. Hayhoe: I was giving not averages but medians. [Laughter.] With my engineering background I like to be precise about these matters. The figure that I gave meant that 50 per cent. of people were waiting fewer than 13 weeks and 50 per cent. were waiting longer. That accurately reflects the queues waiting for operations. My hon. Friend is right, and that is why I said that the number of urgent cases on the waiting list had been reduced by 14 per cent. compared with the figure when we came to power in May 1979.

Mr. Meadowcroft: Is not one aspect of the problem that the more glamorous, hi-tech operations command a higher proportion of the available resources than their prognosis would warrant—for example, compared with hip replacement operations? What is happening to the idea of a medical audit which would examine the relative prognoses of such operations? Will the Minister ensure that hip replacement operations, which give people much greater activity and pleasure, are carried out, as the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) said earlier, without the huge waiting lists that exist in my area, as much as in the hon. Gentleman's area?

Mr. Hayhoe: I said that the number of hip replacements had increased significantly since the party that the hon. Gentleman supported in the Division Lobbies and sustained in office was in power. Having said that, of course the hon. Gentleman is right to raise the wider question. The whole of the medical profession ought to be looking at that question so that a proper balanced judgment can be made. It is certainly not for politicians to impose judgments upon the professions in that area.

Diabetics

Mr. Hirst: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has had any representations recently from or on behalf of diabetics about the provision of medical services to them; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Whitney: The Department is in frequent contact with the British Diabetic Association about its concerns.

Mr. Hirst: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his short reply. Amid all the controversy about whether needles should be made available to drug addicts to prevent the spread of disease, is he aware of the continuing concern of diabetics that disposable syringes and blood glucose monitoring equipment remain unavailable on prescription? As the parent of a young diabetic daughter, may I remind my hon. Friend of the difficulties that a young child has in learning how to inject herself with the large glass syringe supplied by the National Health Service? Can he offer any hope of a relaxation of the prescription availability rules?

Mr. Whitney: We are well aware of the points that my hon. Friend has made. If either of those services is clinically necessary, it is available through the hospital service. However, we are sympathetically considering whether GPs might be able to prescribe home blood glucose tests. Of course, that has important resource implications which must be balanced against other demands on the National Health Service.

Mr. Carter-Jones: Does that mean that the Minister is consenting to ambulatory automatic delivery of insulin to diabetics? Will there be better treatment for the blind diabetic?

Mr. Whitney: I cannot go beyond what I have said. We are considering extremely carefully the improvement of the service, but, where it is clinically necessary, such services are available through the hospital service.

Mr. Robert Atkins: I endorse the request made by my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst). As the parent of a diabetic child, I know at first hand the problems that are involved. For example, a young child, particularly a girl, can be bruised most severely by using a usable as opposed to a reusable syringe. To that extent, will my hon. Friend give what attention he can to considering the point that I have raised as a matter of urgency?

Mr. Whitney: Yes, I certainly will. However, where it is clinically necessary, that provision is still available through the hospital service and my hon. Friend may wish to consider that in his own case.

Disabled Persons (Services Consultation and Representation) Bill

Mr. Tom Clarke: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if, following his consultation exercise on the Disabled Persons (Services Consultation and Representation) Bill, the Government will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy towards its enactment.

Mr. Hayhoe: I made the Government's attitude clear on Second Reading. The Government are still considering the responses to the consultation paper issued last month. I hope to be able to announce our conclusions shortly.

Mr. Clarke: Is the Minister aware that the views that he expressed on Second Reading have found no support? Does he accept that proper assessments and crisis prevention actually save money, apart from being socially desirable? Most important of all, now that he knows that the response to the Government's document was overwhelmingly in favour of every clause in the Bill, will he accept that finding and refuse to dilute it?

Mr. Hayhoe: I know that the consultations have shown that the resource implications of the Bill and of the proposed amendments to the Bill are considerable. I suggested that that was the case when I spoke on Second Reading.

Mr. Hannam: If my right hon. Friend is facing severe resource limitations in connection with this very worthwhile Bill, will he consider a phased programme of introduction of some of the key provisions of the Bill, especially those affecting the assessment and representation of disabled people?

Mr. Hayhoe: That point has been put to me during the consultation period. As I have said, the Government are considering the responses that were given during that period.

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: Does the Minister recall that, perhaps because of, rather than in spite of, his speech the Bill received an unopposed Second Reading? Is he aware that throughout the country there is massive support for the Bill? Why will the Government not accept those democratic decisions and realise that if the will is there the resources can be found?

Mr. Hayhoe: Resources require a little more than will. I know how easy it is for the Opposition to suggest additional expenditure, which presumably would be on top of the £24 billion to which they are already committed.

Mr. Dykes: Does my right hon. Friend intend pursuing through his ministerial colleagues in the Department of Transport discussions with London Regional Transport about converting tube stations to make them suitable for use by disabled persons?

Mr. Hayhoe: I do not think that that matter is directly relevant to the private Member's Bill which we are considering, but I shall certainly take account of my hon. Friend's point.

Mr. Ashley: Will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to repudiate the extraordinary view that the Budget concessions for charities make it more difficult for people to argue for the Bill? Will he acknowledge that the Bill is concerned with statutory services and that the Budget concessions have nothing whatsoever to do with those services?

Mr. Hayhoe: One must consider resources in relation to the whole of Government activity—the ability, or lack of ability, to raise taxation, and the ability to spend, or not to spend, as the case may be. It is difficult to make the sort of sharp differentiations to which the right hon. Gentleman refers.

Mr. Rowe: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many Conservative Members have great sympathy with his views in not wanting to put on the statute book provisions that cannot be met out of resources? Given the enormous support for the Bill, will my right hon. Friend


take great care not to cripple it? Will he have a word with my right hon. and learned Friend the Paymaster General, who seems to believe that the scope for using the community programme and other programmes within the Health Service is much more limited than it really is? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Bill gives us an opportunity to make those programmes effective?

Mr. Hayhoe: As I made clear on Second Reading and in Committee, I am anxious not to support anything that would be unduly bureaucratic or entail undue administrative costs. The hon. Member for Monklands, West, (Mr. Clarke) acknowledged in introducing the Bill the difficulties in providing the substantial extra resources involved in the Bill's provisions.

Mr. Alfred Morris: The right hon. Gentleman has heard from both sides of the House of the deep concern about the Government's attitude to this humane and much needed Bill. Why does he still appear to insist that he knows better than virtually all the voluntary, professional, health and local authority organisations he consulted? They overwhelmingly backed the Bill and opposed the Government's neutering amendments. "Cynical", "hurried and ill-conceived" and "mean and short-sighted" are but a few of their very strong criticisms of the Government's intention to take whole clauses out of the Bill and to water down others. How can the right hon. Gentleman possibly justify that intention?

Mr. Hayhoe: I notice that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was reading out a prepared statement in the guise of asking a supplementary question. He knows, but did not acknowledge, that the local authority associations have made it clear from the start that there are substantial resource implications in the Bill. That is a matter of concern to them and to the Government.

Nurses (Residential Accommodation)

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement about the proposals he has received from regional health authorities to evict nurses from residential accommodation in order to realise assets for National Health Service funding.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Norman Fowler): Authorities have been asked to prepare plans showing how many units of staff accommodation they propose to provide from the beginning of 1988. The Department is currently discussing these plans, some only in draft form, with the 14 regional health authorities.

Mr. Pavitt: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some health authorities are jumping the gun and that some nurses have already been given notice that they may be evicted? Is he aware that, under the 1977 legislation, nurses have the security of tenure which is given to other tenants? Is the right hon. Gentleman making money available so that these cases can be taken to the magistrates' courts? If such cases arise in Fulham before 10 April, will he go to the magistrates' court to evict the nurses?

Mr. Fowler: I think that the last point is a ludicrous mis-statement of what the policy is all about. What health authorities are doing is to review their stock of accommodation. It follows an examination which suggested that one fifth of National Health Service

accommodation was standing empty. That is a totally indefensible position. Therefore, what we are doing is seeking to have a policy which uses National Health Service accommodation. What I have made clear, and what I repeat, is that special protection will be given to nurses in training.

Mr. Onslow: While I do not disagree with my right hon. Friend that there should be no waste in this sector of the Health Service any more than in any other, when the plans put forward by regional health authorities to help a district clearly do not take full account of the actual circumstances in that health district, will my right hon. Friend give instructions that they should be withdrawn for reconsideration?

Mr. Fowler: Yes, Sir. This is the whole purpose of what we are seeking to do. Ministers and the Department will review the plans that come up before they are put into operation.

Mr. Freeson: Why is the Minister fudging answers to this question? Is it not the case that it is Government policy for health authorities to dispose of all these properties, or as many of them as possible, and that action is being taken now? Will he ensure that that kind of policy is not given support by the Department in future and, if there are to be disposals of property in some cases, that the land and property in question are in the first instance offered to local authorities and other bodies, which provide much-needed services for areas in need?

Mr. Fowler: The right hon. Gentleman has entirely mis-stated the policy. What we are saying to health authorities is that if the property is not used, for example, if it is standing empty, it should be sold. Even the right hon. Gentleman might agree with that policy. We will protect the position of nurses in training and we will sell that accommodation to those who are living in it at special discount rates. In addition, we will put the proceeds of these sales to the benefit of the Health Service, and that is surely a sensible thing to do.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Is it not inappropriate for the National Health Service to behave in large measure like a housing authority, too often looking after accommodation which is under-utilised, poorly maintained and badly organised? Is he aware that in my own area, where housing policies have been reviewed, many long-standing tenants have been able to buy their own property, and other property has been sold off, thus releasing resources to improve nurses' accommodation?

Mr. Fowler: I entirely agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said. The fact is that the proceeds will go to health authorities. The first call on those proceeds will be to improve nurses' accommodation. The proceeds will also be used to improve the capital stock. Under this Government, in 1981 we released about £19 million from the sale of land and buildings to the benefit of the Health Service. Next year, that figure will be over £130 million—all to the benefit of the Health Service.

Mr. Dobson: Aside from all the waffle, will the Secretary of State guarantee that no district health authority will resort to the courts to force nurses to leave accommodation in which they wish to remain?

Mr. Fowler: I can give that guarantee. I would ask the hon. Gentleman, aside from his prejudice, to look at the policy and at the impact and effect that it will have upon developing services and facilities in the Health Service.

Smoking

Mr. Janner: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will take steps to seek to reduce the level of smoking among schoolchildren and young persons.

Mr. Fowler: We are currently spending £1 million in two television regions on a test campaign designed specifically to persuade young people not to smoke. In addition, the new voluntary agreement which I have reached with the tobacco industry includes specific measures designed to protect young people.

Mr. Janner: Does the Minister not appreciate that these measures are pathetic and inadequate to meet what remains the plague of smoking by young people? How many people in the country died of tobacco-related diseases last year, how many of them started when they were youngsters, and when will he ban tobacco advertising?

Mr. Fowler: The hon. and learned Gentleman will see from the steps announced yesterday that we are taking further steps to seek to dissuade young people particularly from taking up smoking. There is nothing between us in that respect. I believe that the agreement which we have reached will, in its many details, effect that purpose.

Mr. Sims: Is my right hon. Friend aware that while the agreement does not go as far as some of us would like, it is welcome as far as it goes, particularly in the emphasis that it puts on dissuading children and young people from taking up smoking? Is he satisfied that the provisions in the new agreement are adequate to control the practice of tobacco companies using their name to promote leisurewear, sportswear, concerts and holidays, all of which are aimed at the youth market?

Mr. Fowler: Yes. There is further work to be done about sports sponsorship and sponsorship of that sort, but we are seeking to control that as far as we can. The 10 points on which we have reached agreement will have the effect of further reducing smoking.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Will the right hon. Gentleman please answer the question posed to him by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner). The right hon. Gentleman has the figures. How many people died last year of tobacco-related diseases?

Mr. Fowler: One of the warnings gives the answer to that. The hon. Gentleman can see for himself that more than 30,000 people die each year in the United Kingdom from lung cancer. That will be one of the new warnings on cigarette packets. That is right.

Mr. Bellingham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the main reasons for the big increase in smoking in schools is the reluctance and inability of headmasters to apply the necessary sanctions? What advice will my right hon. Friend give to headmasters?

Mr. Fowler: That is one part of it, but we can help in other parts by the restrictions that we are putting on poster advertising, by the other restrictions that will take place,

and by the advertising that the tobacco industry itself is carrying out to dissuade retailers from selling cigarettes to young children under the age of 16.

Ms. Harman: Is the Secretary of State aware of the growing concern about the sale of Skoal Bandits, a tobacco substance sold for chewing? Is he aware that his chief medical officer has said that Skoal Bandits can cause disfigurement or death among children? Is he aware of the evidence from America which shows that the chewing of Skoal Bandits by children can cause cancer of the tongue, lips and mouth? Instead of seeking voluntary agreement, which clearly has not worked in America, will he ban the sale of Skoal Bandits to children?

Mr. Fowler: The same kind of restrictions apply to the advertising of Skoal Bandits as to the advertising of cigarettes in general. We are considering the evidence provided in the BBC's "That's Life" programme on Sunday—[Interruption]—which suggested that the advertising agreement had not been taken into account. Of course, we are concerned and shall seek to act on that.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to listen to the questions and the answers.

Health Service Pay

Mr. Campbell-Savours: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will make a statement as to his policy on Health Service pay.

Mr. Fowler: The review bodies covering doctors, nurses and other professional groups have taken evidence and will report to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. The ancillary staffs Whitley Council discussed this year's pay claim at its meeting on 13 March. Other negotiaions will also follow.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is there not poverty pay among Britain's NHS ancillary workers? Is it not true that male ancillary workers in the National Health Service earn £40 per week less than the national average manual worker and that women in a similar position earn £65 less? When decisions are taken by 1 April, may we have an assurance that the gap will be closed by the Government?

Mr. Fowler: The first meeting of the ancillary staff side part of the Whitley council took place on 13 March. at that meeting the management side put forward a proposal which could lead to a major revision of the existing grade structure. I am glad to say that the staff side welcomed that in principle and that negotiations will continue on it.

Mr. Meacher: Is the Secretary of State aware that a ward sister with major patient responsibility now gets less pay than a freshly recruited police constable of 19? Is he aware that the maximum that a staff nurse can earn is less than the minimum amount received by the lowest paid constable? Will he give an assurance that in the current negotiations he will rectify this manifest iniquity and will he also publicly repudiate the use of blackmail in saying that any above-inflation increase in nurses' pay will be taken back by cuts in services to patients?

Mr. Fowler: There is no question of blackmail. The hon. Gentleman will agree that there have been two years during which nurses have had above-average increases.


This Government set up an independent review body for nurses, which the nursing profession wanted for years. We provided that, and we were right to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Terry Fields: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 25 March.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

Mr. Fields: Does the Prime Minister recall her words in the Budget debate on 19 April 1961 and her outright condemnation of share speculation? Do not those words ring hollow today in view of the arrogant disregard—[Interruption.]—of the conventions of this House by a Prime Minister abusing that office in her dealings for five years in undisclosed shares? May we have an assurance that when the district auditors have finished investigating honest politicians in Liverpool and Lambeth they will open up the books of the Prime Minister?

Mr. Speaker: Order. First, that was a very long question, and, secondly, I could easily hear it.

The Prime Minister: In reply to the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister heard the question.

The Prime Minister: I have scrupulously observed the long-standing convention governing the holding of shares by Ministers. These conventions are set out in a memorandum by the former Secretary of the Cabinet, which has been in the Library of the House since 1975. Under those conventions there is nothing which requires me, on assuming office, to dispose of my shares or to transfer them into a trust or into the name of investment managers.

Sir Peter Tapsell: Is it not a concept worthy of George Orwell that the only new idea that the official Opposition had during Budget week was to promise us all free burglar alarms—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions must relate to the Prime Minister.

Sir Peter Tapsell: —particularly bearing in mind that the tax policies of the Labour party are designed to turn burglary itself into a nationalised industry?

The Prime Minister: I am sure that my hon. Friend's question was very pertinent. My only comment on the Budget is that the Opposition were not prepared to condemn the reduction in the standard rate of income tax by one penny, and yet were not prepared to vote for it.

Mr. Kinnock: I understand that the Foreign Office will not make a statement in the House today about the incident yesterday in the Gulf of Sidra. May I therefore ask the Prime Minister whether she agrees that her Government's response to the atrocities, to the attacks on British citizens

and to the United States proposal in January for economic sanctions against Libya has been a great deal more rational and responsible than the dangerous and destabilising attacks on Libya yesterday by American forces?
Can the right hon. Lady further tell me what view her Government expressed in the United States when they were informed of its intention to carry out naval exercises in the Gulf of Sidra some weeks ago? Finally, are United Kingdom citizens in Libya being advised to take any additional precautions in the wake of yesterday's incidents?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is referring to the Gulf of Sirte. Let me make it clear that United States ships and aircraft were operating in international waters and airspace and that they have every right so to do. It is important that international waters and airspace be kept open, and we support the right of the United States so to operate.

Mr. Kinnock: The rights of the United States navy to be in international waters are not in question in the House, and certainly nobody could or should accept Gaddafi's definition of what are international waters in the Gulf of Sidra, which is the same place as the right hon. Lady mentioned, as, she should know. What is in question is the United States judgment in exercising those rights. Does she not think that, in view of the destabilising effect of the exchange, it is appropriate for the British Prime Minister to express an opinion that is slightly more assertive than that which she has expressed so far?

The Prime Minister: I have expressed a clear opinion, and shall express it again. It is important that international waters and airspace be kept open. The United States was operating in international waters and airspace and we support its right to operate that way. Its planes were attacked by missiles. The missiles did not hit. In pursuance of article 51 of the United Nations charter, the United States is entitled to act in self-defence against such attacks.

Mr. Fletcher: Will my right hon. Friend accept that only the Opposition Benches would suggest that her personal conduct requires any investigation? Will she also accept that the Conservative Benches and the country have every confidence in her personal integrity?

The Prime Minister: The rules can be read in the Library of the House, I made my position clear. When specific scandalous, scurrilous and totally false allegations were made outside the House, I answered outside the House in meticulous detail to show that the allegations were completely unfounded and outrageous.

Mr. Wallace: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 25 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Wallace: Is the Prime Minister aware that I have received many representations from parents of children from two schools in my constituency—Symbister junior high in Shetland and St. Margaret's Hope in Orkney—about the state of those schools? One was described as dangerous and unsanitary, and the other as being a fire risk? Does she accept that for pupils to study day in and day out in such schools is as adverse to their education as any number of industrial disputes? How can she justify


policies which allow our children to be educated in schools of such damaged fabric when so many people are unemployed, particularly in the construction industry?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, education policy is either for the Secretary of State for Scotland, as the authority which decides upon capital grants, or for his local education authority. He should pursue the matter with them as a matter of priority.

Mr. Charles Wardle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Science and Engineering Research Council intends to remove the Royal Greenwich Observatory from Herstmonceaux in my constituency? Will she encourage the council to consider the impact of its decision on local tourism and ask it to demonstrate how that would be a cost-effective use of millions of pounds of research funds?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, it was the decision of the Science and Engineering Research Council to move the astronomy facilities from Herstmonceaux to one of three other places. It is consulting widely and will consult my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science before a final move is made. I know that it will be painful for those who live near Herstmonceaux if that decision were taken, and I must make it clear that there could be no removal from Herstmonceaux elsewhere before 1990. The consultations will take place, the opinion of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science will be sought and he will also consult the Department of the Environment before any decision is taken.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: In the course of her busy day, will the Prime Minister spare a thought for the people of Tyneside, and in particular the owners, management and work force of Swan Hunter shipbuilders? We are grateful for the interest which the Prime Minister is taking in the placement of the auxiliary oil replenishment vessel. The very future of our community on Tyneside depends upon it. Will the Prime Minister personally intervene to ensure that that order is committed to Swan Hunter and that the shipbuilding industry on the Tyne can survive?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, all Members who represent that part of the country, and, of course, those who are responsible for the rival shipyard in Northern Ireland, are making a very strong case that limited orders should go to their own yards. He will be aware that it is important that the orders should go to the place that has put in the most effective value-for-money tender. It will have to be considered mainly on that basis, and of course the matter is receiving a great deal of attention from my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry, forNorthern Ireland and for Defence. I have nothing further at the moment to say to the hon. Gentleman and those who take the view that he does.

Mr. Stokes: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 25 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Stokes: My right hon. Friend will know of the great importance of British Leyland in my constituency and in many other neighbouring constituencies. Without referring specifically to the statement this afternoon, will she state in general that the Government's policy is either

to merge or to sell constituent parts of BL to those who can make good—probably very good—profits, thus ensuring the long-term future of both employees and suppliers? Will she also state categorically that bids from the United States of America will not be turned down under what The Times calls today "perverse patriotism"?

The Prime Minister: Yes of course it is this Government's policy to secure in the end the privatisation of British Leyland. With that in mind we were making contacts to see whether we could have the privatisation of BL Trucks, Land Rover, Leyland and Freight Rover. My hon. Friend must await the statement, but I make it absolutely clear that we are concerned that there should be a prosperous industry with good prospects for the future for the people who work in it. We are concerned that some day it should be able to stand on its own feet without making extra demands on the taxpayer. Like other firms, it has to run without subsidy.

Mr. Beith: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 25 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Beith: In seeking the best value for money in the AOR vessel contract, will the Prime Minister bear in mind that if Swan Hunter were to underestimate its costs it would be the shareholders who would pay, but that if Harland and Wolff were to underestimate its costs it might be the taxpayer who would be expected to bail it out as a nationalised yard?

The Prime Minister: All hon. Members who have made representations to me have made it very clear that we must watch very carefully to ensure that there is no element of cross-subsidisation in any bid. We are taking that very much into account and having a look at the detailed figures.

Mr. Franks: As the Prime Minister has been invited to consider individual shareholdings, may I invite her to consider the individual shareholdings of 11,400 employees in the Vickers shipyard, representing over 81 per cent. of the total work force, who have applied to buy shares in the company?

The Prime Minister: Yes, this is popular capitalism at work, which has no place in Labour party policy. I wish it well in the allocation of shares to them and in the future of their shipyard.

Mr. Wigley: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 25 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Wigley: Will the Prime Minister find time to consider the inquiry into the case of Isabel Schwartz, the social worker who was killed by her mentally ill client, who had been released into the community without adequate assessment of her needs? Does this case not graphically illustrate the need for the Disabled Persons (Services Consultation and Representation) Bill to be passed? Is the Prime Minister aware that if it had been passed in 1982, Isabel Schwartz might be alive today?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the Government's view of the Bill is that it should be turned into a workable Bill that will not put too many extra


burdens on local authorities. We are particularly aware of the concerns, which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, about these terrible tragedies. We shall do everything that we can to try to avoid them.

Ms. Clare Short: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 25 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Ms. Short: Does the Prime Minister agree with the majority of women in Britain, and with many men, that pictures of naked women in mass circulation newspapers should be made illegal?

The Prime Minister: The Obscene Publications Act would already apply if the hon. Lady has any complaints to make.

Mr. Pavitt: On a point of order arising out of questions, Mr. Speaker. During Question Time, you will

have heard a number of references to a voluntary agreement between the tobacco industry and the Minister for Health. I tried to see a copy of that agreement in the Library this morning, but hon. Members have not had the opportunity to see it. Can you give instructions so that such a copy can be placed in the Library, so that we can see what has been decided?

Mr. Speaker: This is a matter for the Minister, but I am sure that the Front Bench will have heard the hon. Gentleman's request.

Mr. Terry Fields: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for members of the Arthur Daley tendency on the Conservative Benches to seek to muzzle genuine questions to the Prime Minister on a matter of national importance by their—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman had an opportunity to ask his question. I do not think that he was muzzled. I intervened to give him some protection.

British Leyland

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Paul Channon): As the House is aware, BL and the Government have been in discussion with several companies about the privatisation of the main Land Rover-Leyland businesses. Of these, General Motors has made proposals concerning Leyland Trucks, Freight Rover and Land Rover.
In relation to the truck and van sectors, the talks with GM concentrated on the possibilities for combining the respective Leyland and Bedford businesses, to the mutual benefit of GM and BL. In respect of Land Rover, where there are opportunities for Land Rover in expanding European and world markets, the Government were determined that, as a condition of privatisation, special arrangements should be concluded to safeguard UK interests, including a measure of real UK control over the future of the business. For its part, however, GM wished to have effective control of the company from the outset and an assurance of full ownership and control within a relatively short period, and it became clear that it was not able to compromise on these points. Despite the view taken of the GM proposal by the BL board from its commercial standpoint, this was not a basis for an agreement acceptable to the Government in the national interest.
GM has stated that it is not willing to proceed with an arrangement for Leyland Trucks and Freight Rover which excludes the Land Rover company. Therefore, the talks have been ended.
The BL board will give further study to the alternative ways forward for all the businesses concerned. For Leyland Trucks, which operates in a depressed and fiercely competitive market, the board will continue to examine the possibilities for collaboration with other manufacturers and other ways to sustain its improving trend in performance. The Government continue to support the commercial development of this business, in accordance with established plans. For Land Rover and Freight Rover, the board will include in its examination the various expressions of interest which have already been announced, with a view to recommending the course most likely to achieve the privatisation of the businesses in a way which best secures their future.

Mr. John Smith: Does the Secretary of State recognise that he has today announced the collapse of a venture that was ill-conceived in purpose, anti-British in effect and handled with almost unbelievable incompetence? Now that the Secretary of State has confirmed the ending of the talks, can he say that this is the final end of this discredited proposal? Can we exclude any notion of selling valuable parts of British Leyland to its competitors?
The Secretary of State will also no doubt recollect that only a few weeks ago he was standing at the Dispatch Box stating confidently that assurances could be given by General Motors to satisfy all United Kingdom interests. He was insisting on a sharp deadline for the submission of bids, so urgent was the matter that had to be determined.
Is it the case that, in the discussions that have just ended, the Government at one stage proposed that General Motors acquire 49 per cent. of Land Rover, with an option

to increase its shareholding as time, and no doubt public opinion, passed on? What was the role of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in those discussions? Is it not the case that he initiated the secret talks 18 months ago? Despite that, did he not elbow the Secretary of State aside in those discussions and, fearful of the political consequences of what he had initially proposed, bring the talks to an end?
Can we now be assured by the Secretary of State that there will be no question, during the lifetime of the Government, of Land Rover or any other part of the British Leyland Group passing out of British control? Is the Secretary of State aware that it is only the strongly expressed voice of Parliament and people that forced the Government to change direction on this issue?
Will the Government now consider apologising to the British Leyland group for the damaging commercial uncertainty which this whole affair has cost them, including the damage to the Austin Rover group caused by the Ford talks, which were also brought to an end by the voice of Parliament and people? Do the Government realise that, in hanging a "for sale" notice over the premises, they have been culpably negligent in their stewardship of a crucial part of British industry?
The Secretary of State says that the Government will continue to support the commercial development of Leyland Trucks in accordance with established plans. Since it is the established plans which have led us to this pass, is it not time to revise them? Can I suggest that the Government, for once, give proper backing to Leyland Trucks? Why do they not compliment it on its commercial success and stand behind it? Can the Secretary of State tell me whether it is true that the British Leyland board stopped the Austin Rover group putting advertisements in the British newspapers about the success of its ambitions because they ran contrary to the Government's then policy? I should like the Secretary of State to give me a specific answer to that question.
I have one final question to put to the Secretary of State. Since we are now in a fast-moving situation, can the House be given an assurance that there will be no further announcement about any sale of British Leyland before the House returns from the Easter recess? Can we be assured that, before any further moves are made, there will be a full debate in the House so that hon. Members in all parts of the House can express their opinions upon it?

Mr. Channon: I have seldom, if ever, heard a more exaggerated set of questions than that. I shall deal with the points the right hon. and learned Gentleman has raised in his exaggerated questions. I can assure him that no decisions will be taken about any of these matters before the House returns from the Easter recess. As to the question of a debate, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has already told the House the Government's position on that, and it remains unchanged.
As to the other questions raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I have always made it clear to the House, at least I hope I have, that we wanted adequate assurances before we would be prepared to sell Land Rover to General Motors. There might have been a compromise. That is certainly something that was discussed. But it was quite impossible to reach a situation in which General Motors insisted on having effective control of the company and an assurance of full ownership


and control within a relatively short period. I could not recommend that to my colleagues or the House, and I think that that was right.
We shall continue with the established plans for trucks, which are already known. I hope that the BL board will now be considering all the options available to it, and will make recommendations to me. The Government will then consider them in the normal way.

Mr. Robert Atkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the fact that GM has pulled out means that Leyland Trucks, with its successful recent record in terms of its product, price and market share, will now need further investment from the Government and the taxpayer, just as other successful companies, such as British Aerospace have merited and gained such investment in recent years. Might not the partisan and short-sighted barriage of questions and statements from the Opposition have done more harm to the future and jobs of those working in Leyland Trucks than GM could ever do? Will my right hon. Friend resist the suggestion to hold an urgent debate on British Leyland, as that will do nothing more than exacerbate the problems which he is trying so hard to resolve?

Mr. Channon: I have already said that the Government will continue to support the commercial development of the truck business in accordance with the established plans. Of course the future of Leyland Trucks will be a matter for the board to consider in the normal way, and it will also come forward with proposals in the normal way. At present, there is no suggestion of any further equity being needed for Leyland Trucks or any other part of the Leyland business.
I cannot see any purpose in holding a debate until we have something to debate and until I have recommendations to put to the House.

Mr. David Steel: Does the Secretary of State agree that GM has a legitimate grievance in that, when it was first propositioned by his predecessor—now the chairman of the Conservative Party—in mid-1984, to take over the whole lot, no such conditions were attached to his eagerness to be rid of British Leyland's commercial vehicles? Conditions have been imposed only as a result of quite proper pressure in the House during the past few weeks. Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that representations are being made by Austin Rover retailers, because the damaging uncertainty hanging over the future of British Leyland as a whole is affecting showroom sales? Will he make it his business to restore calm in the future of BL as soon as possible?

Mr. Channon: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster publicly sought would-be buyers, as was made clear to the House some time ago. General Motors' original interest arose out of talks about mutual problems over trucks. It was always clear from the start that any interest in Land Rover/Range Rover might raise such difficulties.
I think that the whole House would like to pay tribute to Austin Rover's progress, and to congratulate the company on its increasing exports—[AN HON. MEMBER: "Then why flog it?"]—particularly to Europe. I am surprised that the Labour party does not seem to want to hear this part of my answer. In 1985, exports increased

by 10 per cent. over the figure for 1984, and in the first three months of 1986, they are 35 per cent. up on the same period in 1985. The new Rover 800 executive car has excellent export prospects, and I hope that it will spearhead Austin Rover's re-entry into the American market.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the bus and truck industries of Britain and Europe now have huge excess capacity? When judging the board's recommendations, what criteria will he have in mind in determining a strategy that will protect British interests?

Mr. John Carlisle: Re-rat.

Mr. Channon: I agree that there is a huge excess capacity in the truck and bus business throughout western Europe. We will all have to consider that factor carefully. Indeed, the board of BL will have to consider it carefully in recommending a future course of action to me.
I shall ensure that all relevant factors are put before me before I make recommendations.

Mr. Michael Foot: rose—

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As one who has been had up for unparliamentary language, may I ask whether it is in order for an hon. Member to call another hon. Member a rat?

Mr. Speaker: I heard no such—

Several Hon. Members: indicated dissent.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If an hon. Member said that, I would ask him to withdraw it, but I—[Interruption] Order. I repeat what I said yesterday. Let us keep our parliamentary language on a high and traditional level.

Mr. Foot: When did the Minister and the Government make the remarkable discovery that it was the desire and determination of General Motors to take over the whole business?

Mr. Channon: It was always clear that General Motors wanted to take over the whole business. What I have told the House is that we wished to see whether a compromise could be found that was acceptable to all the parties concerned. No compromise was found; therefore, the talks were broken off.

Mr. Richard Page: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that the breakdown of the talks is bad news for General motors and for British Leyland? Would he not accept that the misplaced jingoism of the past four weeks was started by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) with his intemperate private notice question of 3 February? Will my right hon. Friend make sure that the extra redundancies that there will be, and the extra demands for taxpayers' money, are laid firmly on the doorstep of Opposition Members?

Mr. Channon: It would not be right for me to speculate on the effect on General Motors. As to the effects on the British Leyland subsidiaries, I am sure that I will be able to bring to the House proposals made to me by the BL board that will offer them a secure future.

Mr. Terry Davis: In the light of his statement, will the right hon. Gentleman


confirm that the talks broke down over Land Rover and that the Government were willing to see Freight Rover taken over by General Motors, with a consequent loss of 1,700 jobs in Birmingham?

Mr. Channon: The consequence that the hon. Gentleman suggests would not necessarily follow.

Mr. John Mark Taylor: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Land Rover management buy-out team has received no more than an acknowledgment of the proposals that it made three weeks ago? Is it not time that my right hon. Friend asked Hill Samuel and the Department of Trade and Industry to start talking to Schroder about the buy-out and to make some progress?

Mr. Channon: With respect to my right hon. Friend, he is not quite right about that. I have myself had two long meetings with Mr. Andrews and his colleagues, and I understand that they had a meeting with Hill Samuel that finished only recently; so talks are in progress, and all those matters are being fully studied.

Mr. George Park: Will the Secretary of State now answer the question asked by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), and acknowledge the damage done to BL by the abortive negotiations? Will he abandon plans to fragment BL, and allow it to make progress of the kind that he himself has just referred to?

Mr. Channon: I do not want to do that, and I will not do so. I do not acknowledge what the hon. Gentleman says. Anyone who says that it is wrong to sell off constituent parts of BL should reflect on the success of Jaguar before he eats his words.

Mr. David Madel: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, if negotiations between British Leyland and General Motors had been successful, General Motors would have made this country the centre of its European commercial vehicles operation, and that that would have been of great benefit to this country, bringing new investment and new employment? Given the concern of those who work in Bedford Commercial Vehicles, can my right hon. Friend impress upon General Motors the importance of GM continuing to manufacture commercial vehicles in Bedfordshire to sustain employment there?

Mr. Channon: On the latter part of that question, I am certain that it must be very much in the interests of all concerned that that should be the case. I share my hon. Friend's view of the matter. The first part of his question is a matter for General Motors, but I have certainly heard the suggestion made.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: Is it right that the main board of British Leyland should continue to have only two executive directors? Will the Secretary of State assure the House that there will be no victimisation of any executive manager of BL who has opposed all or any part of this package which has been approved by the main board members, not all of whom are successful business men?

Mr. Channon: The House knows that a new chairman of the BL board is to take over in the next few weeks. He will no doubt wish to consider the composition of the

board. I shall ask him to look at the hon. Gentleman's point, which is a very good one. I shall also ensure—although I am sure that there is no question of it, anyway—that there is no victimisation.

Mr. Hal Miller: In the light of the Opposition crowing in their isolationist joy about turning away much-needed investment in our truck and commercial vehicle industry, will my right hon. Friend tell the House, as a result of the developments that he has announced today, what discussions he has had with General Motors about keeping the design and development of commercial vehicles in this country and what future he envisages for the commercial vehicle industry now that Ford have joined up with Iveco and General Motors will be forced to consider alternatives?

Mr. Channon: Of course I agree with my hon. Friend about the wholly hypocritical attitude of the Labour party. First it was against the deal; now it complains because it is over. That is absolutely typical of its attitude. I have not had discussions with General Motors about the second part of my hon. Friend's question. That is a matter for General Motors, but it is a very important question. I very much hope that General Motors will continue to play such a role in this country.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Has the Laird Group withdrawn its offer and proposals for the future of Leyland Bus, which would have meant the closure of the Workington plant? And what is the status of the discussions with Aveling Barford, which is visiting the Workington plant today?

Mr. Channon: No, I do not think that it has withdrawn its proposals. Aveling Barford has also made other proposals. The BL board will consider those and any other proposals that are put to it, including management proposals, if any are made, and will make recommendations to me in the course, I hope, of the next few weeks.

Mr. Graham Bright: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that this decision has cast an enormous question mark over the future of Bedford trucks and that the opportunity for General Motors to make this country the centre of its research, development and design for the whole of Europe has been blown? If GM does negotiate with Renault trucks or Volvo—we know that it is talking to them—those skills will be lost to Europe. That is exactly what we should be trying to stop. The GM deal would have enabled this country to have a proper truck manufacturing operation. The people of Luton and Bedfordshire will feel that this chance has been blown.

Mr. Channon: I very much hope that my hon. Friend's views will not be justified. I have no reason to assume that they will be justified. I am sure that GM will look carefully at all the alternative ways forward for the Bedford business, which I agree is extremely important for Britain and, I should have thought, for General Motors.

Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: Is the Secretary of State aware that his statement that a condition of the privatisation of Land Rover should be that it is retained in United Kingdom ownership is very welcome? However, is he also aware that the uncertainty is very damaging not only to this business but also to the volume car business? Will he seek to bring the discussions,


particularly the management buy-out proposals of Mr. Andrews, to an early conclusion so that the uncertainty can he cleared up?

Mr. Channon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support in the first part of his question. I agree with him that it would be helpful if these matters could be brought to a conclusion in the reasonably near future.

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Is my right hon. Friend aware that seven heavy truck manufacturers are still based in Britain, none of which exports substantially to Europe, but that, on the other hand, the whole of western Europe has only seven heavy truck manufacturers, all of which export substantially to Britain? Have we not lost a great opportunity to restructure the British truck industry? Will not GM now run off and make a deal with one of our European competitors? Is it not the Labour party that is wholly to blame, for trying to pull the Union Jack over the eyes of the voters?

Mr. Channon: I have never disguised from the House the fact that, if a satisfactory deal with General Motors had been worked out, it would have had many advantages. It is not possible to achieve that deal. We shall have to work on other solutions, and I hope we shall find a satisfactory one.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Is not the lesson of this unhappy whole episode that the Government must never again try deceptively and surreptitiously, behind the backs of the British public and behind the back of Parliament to dispose of such a vital part—[AN HON. MEMBER: "What role are you playing?"]—I am trying to protect British interests—to dispose of a vital part of British industry. Is it not true that this rotten manoeuvre was aborted only by the brilliant interventions of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith)?

Mr. Channon: I refute entirely the allegation that the Government behaved deceptively. If the Opposition are seriously suggesting that all negotiations should be carried out in public, they will have a heavy price to pay.

Sir Paul Bryan: Since the most successful part of the motor industry in Britain is owned by the Americans and will probably shortly be owned by Nissan, what is wrong with Land Rover being owned by the Americans if they produce a better product?

Mr. Channon: I judged that it was right, and that it would receive the support of the House, if we could get a deal with General Motors on which there could be a compromise about the ownership of Land Rover. I was not prepared to recommend to my colleagues a situation in which General Motors had effective control of that company and the assurance of full ownership and control within a relatively short time.

Mr. Dave Nellist: Is the Secretary of State aware that the workers in Coventry, the midlands and elsewhere, instead of hearing the Secretary of State continuing to tout around the world saying, "Anybody want to buy a car industry?", would have preferred a categorical assurance that Leyland would remain in public ownership? That would end the speculation and worry about workers' jobs.
The Secretary of State has said on a number of occasions that the large-scale volume production of

vehicles is essential if we are to compete in international markets. Why does the Secretary of State not reverse the process of recent months and take into public ownership Vauxhall, Ford and Peugeot to create a British motor industry capable of the volume production necessary to compete in international markets?

Mr. Channon: Perhaps we shall see that unfold with all the details as we approach the general election. With regard to jobs, security and prosperity, one should consider what has happened at Jaguar since it was privatised. There has been an increase in its sales and employees. The idea that one has to keep industries in public ownership for them to be successful is a foolish and idiotic idea, believed only by Opposition Members.

Mr. Michael Grylls: Will my right hon. Friend take comfort from the fact that there is widespread support for his policy of returning viable parts of British Leyland to the private sector? Will my right hon. Friend bear it in mind that British Leyland, although technically one company, is a group of companies? Although the truck division would undoubtedly prosper in General Motors, Land Rover and Range Rover are a specialist company, rather like Jaguar. They may well do better standing on their own, financed by the private sector.

Mr. Channon: I take note of what my hon. Friend says; it is a view that many people share.

Mr. Dalyell: Will the Secretary of State clarify what he meant in his opening remarks:
The BL board will give further study to the alternative ways forward for all the businesses concerned"?
I stress "all".
Does not this resurrect the question of Bathgate? I ask the Secretary of State whether he or the Minister of State—who, frankly, has been very helpful in these matters when I and my colleagues have approached him in relation to the complex problems of Bathgate—will give particular attention to the shop stewards' and Scottish Office initiative in relation to Bathgate and Mr. Anthony Bamford. Can some machine capacity be retained at what is the biggest machine shop under one roof in Europe? I see the Secretary of State consulting the Minister of State. The suggestion makes sense. Can I have an assurance that the Department of Trade and Industry will take it seriously?

Mr. Channon: Naturally I shall consider seriously anything that the hon. Gentleman proposes. I am anxious not to reawaken hopes that will have to be dashed again. The chances of doing what he suggests are extremely remote, but I shall certainly have his suggestion examined.

Mr. Derek Conway: As my right hon. Friend is under fire today for defending British interests, can I urge him not to be disheartened, and to appreciate that there is widespread support for the privatisation of parts, if not all of BL? Will he assure the House that the component sourcing policies of BL and parts thereof will be continued, and that the British industry will also be safeguarded in future?

Mr. Channon: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. He raises an important point, with which I agree.

Mr. Jack Straw: Would the Secretary of State like to place on record his praise for the staff and work force of Leylad Trucks, whose products have risen


to the top of the best-selling league, despite the damaging uncertainty which this farrago has created? Can he spell out precisely the time scale that he now has in mind for the so-called privatisation of Leyland Trucks, given the fact that his original time scale has been aborted?

Mr. Channon: I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman about the immense progress that has been made in Leyland Trucks. He may recall that, in my original statement, I mentioned the trend in its performance, and I met a deputation from the unions in Leyland Trucks recently. I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I would prefer not to give him a firm answer about a timetable at this stage because that would be misleading. I must await recommendations from the BL board about the best way forward for Leyland Trucks, and I hope that I shall have proposals in the not too distant future.

Mr. David Gilroy Bevan: Will my right hon. Friend, in accepting my thanks for this further statement, which is a step towards the protection of the jobs of the workers, many of whom live in my constituency, now please instruct the bankers of BL, through the board, to give full and proper information to the managers and all those other companies which are bidding for BL, and not the paucity of information which has been the apology so far given and which has shown their partiality and preference?

Mr. Channon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support, but I cannot accept what he said in the last part of his question. As I said in my original statement, the board will now include in its examination the various expressions of interest which have already been announced so that it can recommend to me the best course forward. I am told that all normal information has been given, but I shall immediately check that with BL.

Mr. Robin Corbett: Why is the Secretary of State such a dogmatic devotee of privatisation? Does he not recall that the former incompetent private owners of BL got it into such a mess that it had to be rescued with public funds? Will he now give the House an undertaking that the Government will keep their incompetent hands off BL and allow it to continue to succeed so that, as taxpayers, we can get back the moneys which we put in to rescue it?

Mr. Channon: I am afraid that I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. All experience shows—I cited Jaguar earlier—that, if we can get the subsidiaries of the companies into private hands, it will give the companies a better opportunity for a secure long-term future. That is true not only for the motor industry, but for every other industry.

Mr. Nicholas Lyell: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is a great community of interest in the future of Leyland Trucks, Freight Rover and many other products in the continuation of reopening of negotiations with GM? Will he make it clear that it is not the British Government who are seeking to close the door on further negotiations?

Mr. Channon: As I have already said, the Government are always ready to consider fresh proposals, but at present there are no plans for the resumption of talks.

Mr. David Winnick: Is the Secretary of State aware of the outrage felt in the west midlands at

what the Government have done over BL and the way in which they have acted? Is it not a supreme irony that, when the chairman of the Conservative party was Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, he started negotiations with GM, yet he has told his Cabinet colleagues that selling to GM is simply not on?

Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman is vastly exaggerating what he calls the outrage in the west midlands, and, as usual, he is distorting the actions of my right hon. Friend, who has been extremely helpful at all stages, as indeed all my colleagues have been. This is a Government decision, and the hon. Gentleman is talking rubbish.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will call the Conservative Members who have been standing, and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), who has suddenly got to his feet, for a further five minutes. However, I must bear in mind that further business today is on a timetable.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend place in the Library a copy of the final terms upon which GM was prepared to purchase Freight Rover, Leyland Trucks and Land Rover?

Mr. Channon: I shall certainly consider what my hon. Friend says, but the talks did not end in that way. I put various proposals orally to GM, but it was not prepared to accept them. So I do not think that that is a relevant issue at present.

Mr. Michael Fallon: Now that the wedding is off, can my right hon. Friend assure me that taxpayers will not be asked to foot the bill?

Mr. Channon: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I am satisfied with his statement this afternoon—so much so, indeed, that when I heard during the weekend that the GM deal was off, I ordered a Range Rover yesterday? Is it not time that the House set an example and that many more right hon. and hon. Members brought British cars? I speak as a Rover user, and if hon. Members set an example, I am sure that the country would follow, and British Leyland in private hands would be a highly successful company.

Mr. Channon: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for his support, which I have been accustomed to receive over the years on many occasions. If all the people who talked about BL bought a BL car, BL would have a higher proportion of the British share of the market than it does at present.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Will my right hon. Friend accept that many of us have a great deal of sympathy for him in that he was landed with this problem so early in what will be a distinguished tenure of office? Will he further accept that many of us respect him for the difficult decision that he had to make, and believe that he has made the right one? Land Rover, which is a specialist manufacturer, should remain—not in a narrow, patriotic sense, but in a proper sense—in British hands. Will he go one step further and make the other proper decision, which is to back the zeal, ability,


willingness and money of the management-worker buyout, and make an early decision so that this great company can go forward for its workers, for the country and for us all?

Mr. Channon: I am grateful, indeed, to my hon. Friend for his support which, again, I have been accustomed to receiving on many occasions. The management buy-out will be considered together with the other expressions of interest by the board in order to come forward with recommendations for the best course in the future. It would be wrong for me to prejudge that at this stage, but I know that there is considerable support in the House for that. There may well be other options available.

Mr. John Maples: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that his statement will come as a great disappointment to those who were hoping for some rationalisation of the British truck industry? Does he agree that those who have wrapped themselves in phoney patriotism in an attempt to oppose that rationalisation will bear a great deal of responsibility if GM now finds itself a European partner, and we end up with no truck industry? Does he appreciate that, if he resumes negotiations with GM for the sale of a controlling interest in both Leyland Trucks and Land Rover, he will have considerable support behind him on these Benches?

Mr. Channon: I note what my hon. Friend says, but I cannot add to what I said earlier. There are no plans at present for the resumption of talks, and it would be misleading if I were to pretend otherwise. However, I note my hon. Friend's comments and I shall come forward with further proposals as soon as I can.

Mr. Roger King: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, although the management buy-out is well accepted by many people, it also finds a great deal of favour among the work force? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the trade unions have said that they are willing to become involved financially in such a management buy-out? Such aspirations have been raised to a high level in the west midlands. We hope that they will be realised.

Mr. Channon: I acknowledge what my hon. Friend has said, but it would be quite wrong of me to express a view at this stage on the various alternatives.

Mr. Den Dover: Does the Secretary of State agree that a much better bargain could be obtained for Leyland Trucks in a year or two if the division were kept in public hands until then?

Mr. Channon: I shall, of course, consider that possibility.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Flannery.

Mr. Martin Flannery: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for balancing the questions—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has only just started to rise.

Mr. Flannery: The hon. Gentleman has been standing up continually.
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that a Japanese firm has a great rival to Land Rover—a four-wheel drive car which looks very much like the Land Rover? Is it not true that that Japanese firm is owned by General Motors of America? Does it not follow that, because costs

in Japan are much lower, if General Motors gets hold of the Land Rover BL production machine here, it could, from America, in the interests of profit, easily close down Land Rover to make profits in Japan?

Mr. Channon: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, if there had been a deal with General Motors on Land Rover, we would have required satisfactory assurances from that company which would have ensured the future of the Solihull plant, the local content and the other things which I have described to the House many times.

Mr. Charles Wardle: Will my right hon. Friend accept that many Conservative Members and many people in the automotive industry consider world market share profitability and British jobs to be more important than all the jingoism of the past few weeks? Will he convey to General Motors and to Ford that they are as welcome to prosper and expand in this country as British firms are welcome to do in the United States?

Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the importance of General Motors and of Ford in the British economy. They are both large employers which put a great deal of money and effort into the United Kingdom. I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government think that they are very welcome.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a majority of Conservative Members regret the collapse of the General Motors talks, as a great opportunity lost? Would it not have been better for the Government to concentrate on securing a successful motor industry in Britain rather than to respond to the misguided and jingoistic calls from those who will leave a price to be paid in lost jobs and higher taxes?

Mr. Channon: I note what my hon. Friend says. I hope that I shall be able to come forward, in the not-too-distant future, with proposals on the future of Land Rover and Freight Rover which my hon. Friend will welcome.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall bear in mind when we next discuss this matter those hon. Members who have not been called today.

BILLS PRESENTED

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Secretary Fowler, supported by Mr. Secretary Edwards, Mr. Secretary King, Mr. Michael Jopling, Mr. Kenneth Clarke, Mr. John MacGregor, Mr. Secretary Rifkind, Mr. Barney Hayhoe and Mr. Ray Whitney, presented a Bill to apply certain enactments, orders and regulations relating to food to certain health service bodies and premises; to make further provision as to pharmaceutical services under the National Health Service Act 1977 and the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 and the remuneration of persons providing those services, general medical services, general dental services or general ophthalmic services under those Acts; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 119].

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Robert Rhodes James presented a Bill to amend the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Acts 1949 and 1958, and the Representation of the People Act 1983, to provide for a reduction in the number of parliamentary constituencies to 500, with a minimum constituency population of 100,000, and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 16 May and to be printed. [Bill 120].

Immigration Act 1971 (Amendment)

Mr. Max Madden: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a right of appeal in the United Kingdom to those persons refused entry to the United Kingdom, including those persons visiting the United Kingdom.
Today, as on every other day, some 50 people, mostly visitors to Britain from the New Commonwealth and Pakistan, will be refused entry to the United Kingdom. Last year, more than 18,000 people were refused entry to this country and more than 10,000 were black and Asian people from the New Commonwealth and Pakistan. Each person refused entry is given a form saying that they have been refused entry because an immigration officer does not believe that they are a genuine visitor. The form says that the person has a right of appeal but that appeal can be exercised only when the visitor has returned home.
The refusal ruins the person's holiday as they lose their fares and other expenses incurred. It is not surprising, therefore, that more than three quarters of the people compelled to return home do not bother to appeal. If their appeal was successful, most would not have the money or opportunity to return to this country.
My Bill seeks to provide an effective right of appeal which can be exercised by the person while he or she is in this country. That was first recommended in 1967 by Sir Roy Wilson, QC, who chaired the committee on immigration appeals. On the Second Reading of the Immigration Appeals Bill in 1969, the then Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) said:
It is implicit in the Wilson Committee's Report that an appellant who has reached the United Kingdom and is refused entry on arrival should normally be allowed to remain here to await the determination of his appeal".—[Official Report, 21 January 1969; Vol. 776, c. 494.]
Regrettably, the provisions conferring that general right of appeal were never brought into force and were not included in the Immigration Act 1971, which repealed the 1969 Act but retained the basic appeals system.
Under section 13(3), the only rights of appeal that can be exercised here are by persons holding a current entry clearance or a current work permit. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) said in Standing Committee on the Immigration Bill in 1971:
Every lawyer knows how difficult it is to prosecute any action, however simple, from a distance of 30 miles; and that to instruct legal advisers, interview witnesses, discuss documents not in one's possession, can be extremely difficult, even if one is operating between London and the provinces. Operating between London and Karachi would be virtually impossible. To insist that someone who has the right of appeal under the Bill should exercise it from such a distance, and in those circumstances, is to bring the whole procedure of appeal into contempt."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 20 May 1971; c. 1072.]
Nearly ten people refused entry as visitors turn for help every day to Members of this House or of another place. Hon. Members usually request a stop on the person's removal and that they be given temporary admission. Of the 8,500 people granted temporary admission last year, only 187 absconded.
Introducing a right of appeal which can be operated here, easily and simply, would be a victory for natural justice, as it would allow a person appealing to be present when his appeal is considered. An effective right of appeal


would, it is to be hoped, improve the quality of decisions taken by immigration officers. That would reduce the number of people refused entry. That in turn would reduce the number of people who are now forced to turn to hon. Members for help and the number of letters which hon. Members have to write on behalf of their constituents to the Minister of State, Home Office. That reform would most definitely be welcomed by many of our constituents who are angry at the way in which their relatives and friends are now refused entry to this country for holidays and at the conditions and circumstances in which those people have to wait, often for considerable lengths of time. The Bill would make a major contribution to improving Britain's tourist image.
For all those compelling reasons, I commend this modest and moderate Bill to the House and to the Government.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Max Madden, Mr. Stan Thorne, Mr. Harry Cohen, Mr. Derek Fatchett, Mrs. Margaret Beckett, Mr. Peter Pike, Mr. Alfred Dubs, Ms. Clare Short, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Mr. Sydney Bidwell, Mr. Dave Nellist and Mr. David Winnick.

IMMIGRATION ACT 1971 (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Max Madden accordingly presented a Bill to establish a right of appeal in the United Kingdom to those persons refused entry to the United Kingdom, including those persons visiting the United Kingdom: and the same was read the First time; And ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 25 April and to be printed. [Bill 121.]

Orders of the Day — Gas Bill

[2nd ALLOTTED DAY]

Order for Third Reading read.

The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Peter Walker): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I should like to express my gratitude to all those who worked over the years in preparing and drafting the Bill and in helping us to steer it through the Committee and Report stages. I should like to express my gratitude also to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State who carried the great burden of the Bill through those stages. I hope that hon. Members will agree that they performed that task with skill, application and courtesy and in the best traditions of the House. It would be no help to the Opposition if I paid tribute to them, but I must say that they vigorously propounded their arguments against the various facets with which they disagreed. I think that hon. Members will agree that, irrespective of one's views for or against the legislation, in Committee the arguments were vigorously propounded and genuinely considered. The Bill at Third Reading is, one would hope, better than it was at Second Reading.
As I pointed out on Second Reading, irrespective of whether one agreed or disagreed with the policy, the Bill was carefully studied and examined before being presented to the House. It was given careful consideration from the time the Conservative party was returned to Government in 1983. International comparisons were made and alternative methods of privatisation were studied. Conclusions were reached after careful consideration.
The Bill was carefully drafted. It was not rushed past the parliamentary draftsmen. Committee members will have recognised that, according to the standards of a normal controversial Bill, the legislation did not require a great deal of Government amendment. There were 250 Government amendments to the Bill which nationalised the gas industry. That legislation was beaten by the Bill which nationalised the electricity industry, to which there were 353 Government amendments. There were large numbers of Government amendments to other privatisation measures. There were 63 Government amendments to the Gas Bill, most of which were consequential. The lesson to be learned is that greater care taken in drafting is of benefit in Committee and in the House.
When I moved the Second Reading, I argued that we wished to ensure that the legislation was to the benefit of gas consumers. Its aim was to improve competition, to cover safety elements and to improve the position of employees. On Third Reading, I recommend the Bill using those same arguments. A number of improvements and changes have been made since Second Reading.
On Second Reading, the Opposition pointed out on a number of occasions that the Bill as drafted looked after certain aspects of consumer interests but that there was a range of consumer interests at which the Gas Consumers Council would not be able to look. I assured hon.


Members that legally the council would be able to consider matters at which the National Gas Consumers Council had looked. Understandably, the National Gas Consumers Council and Committee members felt that it would be better to spell that out in the Bill rather than leave it open to dispute and hence arguments about validity. On Report, we spelled out the the range of activities which the consumers council of the denationalised gas industry would be able to consider.
The Government want the new Gas Consumers Council to be effective. It will be the responsibility not of my Department but of the Department of Trade and Industry, which has responsibility for consumer affairs. The Department of Trade and Industry has been having meetings in all the regions concerned to study the ways in which the new council can be effectively set up with approprate staffing and facilities to give good service to the consumer.
Not only the Government but British Gas are anxious to see a continuation of the benefits of a good consumer service. I believe that the improved drafting of certain clauses, the new clause and the provisions giving certain powers will make the council an effective organisation.
I do not greatly criticise the present consumers council which now operates under nationalisation but, over the years, I believe that it has become too involved in committees, in passing pieces of paper between groups, and so on. A change such as this gives us an opportunity to ensure that the Gas Consumers Council will use its powers and facilities to benefit consumers. I believe that, in practice, there will be no complaint about the manner in which the new Gas Consumers Council works, certainly with respect to the representation of industrial and domestic consumers.
One obvious objective of the Bill is to improve on the benefits of competition. For more than a century, certain aspects of competition were limited throughout the world, whether in the private or in the public sector. We have learnt from experience following the passage of the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill, which was introduced by my predecessor. We have made a number of changes in this legislation which will enhance the aims of that legislation.
During the Bill's passage, we announced the way in which we would endeavour to deal with the problems of imports and exports. There is a potential for further competition. Governments have to continue to take a basic look at the overall national scene. Under our import-export regime, British Gas will have to consult the Government of the day on any major imports it has in mind.
Likewise, if the monopoly position of British Gas was being used in a way detrimental to the development of the North sea, we have made it clear that an application for an export licence would obtain the appropriate waiver providing that the security of national supplies was not put in jeopardy as a result. Judging by the reception of the oil industry and other gas producers, this has been genuinely welcomed as an improvement on the existing situation while retaining the important oversight to ensure that no monopolies on the oil companies' side or on the British Gas side can operate in that respect against the national interest.
One interesting factor about the Bill has been the manner in which our original proposals to ensure that the British Gas contract market did not come into the

regulation into which domestic gas will come has been clearly accepted by British commerce and industry as a whole. I remember that, when I argued on Second Reading that in my judgment it was to the benefit of competition and not to its detriment that this area remained free of detailed regulation, there was some anxiety on both sides of the House about that.
In Committee and on Report it was seen that not only major organisations like the CBI and the chambers of commerce, all of whom were carefully consulted before the Bill was drafted, but commerce and industry in general have remained well aware of the advantages that they enjoy from considerable competition in the industrial energy market. British Gas currently enjoys about 35 per cent. only of that market and is in fierce competition with electricity and oil. I believe that that competition is good, and the manner in which the Bill has been drafted means that, if ever British Gas moved to exploit some monopoly situation, it could be referred to the appropriate machinery and dealt with.
The expectation of British commerce and industry is very much that British Gas will find it in its vested interest to remain in a very competitive position in this respect. It remains true that the only strong representations that we have had in favour of regulating British Gas in this sphere of the market have been from its major competitors. On reflection, I think that we were right to include such a provision.
I think that the system of regulation that we have put in place will be effective and to the benefit of the domestic consumer. The consumer will benefit from reductions in the cost of raw materials, if they occur. The current expectation, looking at world oil markets, is that these will be taking place in years to come. I hasten to add that I do not necessarily share that prediction. One matter about which I have remained ardent in my time as Secretary of State for Energy is that I will never make any prediction of a future oil price. If any future Secretary of State for Energy decides to join in that game, I will consider that he has been badly advised. [HON. MEMBERS: "The Chancellor did."] The Chancellor made it clear that he was not making a prediction last week. He said that for the purpose of his figures he had to put in a price, but he made clear that that was in no way a prediction.
While many firms claim to be able to make such predictions, the only thing that they all have in common is that virtually always their forecasts are wrong. If the price of gas moves down, the formula that we have chosen will ensure that the consumer benefits therefrom.
The consumer will have a direct and immediate participation in the improved efficiency of British Gas over the years as new skills, technology and management techniques are applied. As a result, not only will the domestic consumer benefit in terms of price from the regulatory machinery mechanism but, under Governments of all persuasions, the formula will protect that market from Chancellors who have a desire to obtain revenue from that source, be they in a Labour Government, a Conservative Government or, maybe 100 years hence, even an alliance Government. It is a method of regulation that I think will be very much in the interests of the consumer. Therefore, from the point of view of consumer interest, improving competition and the industrial and domestic market, we argue that the Bill is well thought out and to the benefit of the nation.
We have recognised from the beginning of drafting the Bill the importance of maintaining high standards of safety. We not only examined the existing statutory requirements upon British Gas and ensured that they were all transferred to the new company but reviewed those requirements and made a certain number of amendments thereto. Although some mockery was made of changing the 24-hour rule to a l2-hour rule, this was never a gimmick. The management of British Gas, whoever are the managers, will know that nothing is more detrimental to its interests than suddenly acquiring a bad reputation on safety.
The reason why British Gas as a nationalised industry, for commercial motives as well as many others, has paid great attention to safety is that it has known that if, in competition with electricity, oil and other forms of energy, it ever obtained a reputation for being unsafe, it would lose its market share and its customers on a substantial scale.
In all the discussions with British Gas in drafting the Bill, we were at no time arguing with people who wanted either limitations or freedom on safety, we were arguing with people who had a long tradition of passion for safety, people who recognised that a reputation for safety in the private sector was in their commercial interests. Given the responsibilities of the Health and Safety Executive, the improvements that we have made and the quite important statutory improvement that in future British Gas will have a responsibility extending both sides of the meter, we have used the measure not to reduce safety but to improve it.
With regard to employees, I believe that the measure is in their interests in that at long last they can have a direct participation in their own industry. It is also in their interests that the industry will be free of the type of political and bureaucratic interferences from which nationalised industries of every description suffer from time to time. I sense that the employees of British Gas recognise that the measure will be to their advantage. I was pleased that the attempt of certain unions to get a ballot in favour of industrial action against privatisation did not succeed. This was because the employees of British Gas decided that it would not succeed. The ballot therefore went against those who were urging such a course. Irrespective of that, what is important is that the management of British Gas fully recognises that its future commercial success depends upon the actions and quality of the company's employees, and on the atmosphere and good team spirit that must continue in the industry.
I was amused to read recently the suggestion—I forget whether it was by a trade union leader or by a Labour party politician—that, if British Gas was privatised at some lower price and the assets revalued on a replacement cost basis, the result would be a loss to each British consumer of X hundred pounds. Neither consumers nor employees have received any great benefit from that valuation of the assets of British Gas. Now, for the first time, managers and employees of British Gas will have direct participation in the industry. To have direct participation in an industry to which one has devoted one's life is important. Neither employees nor consumers have ever felt a sense of participation.
I took my first faltering interest in politics in the 1945–50 period of the enthusiastic Labour Government nationalising everything and I think they genuinely felt that nationalisation would bring about consumer and employee participation. I am sure that in their quiet, silent moments, most members of the Labour party feel that their

genuine aspirations did not materialise. Consumers soon realised that, as is evident from the experience of a certain enthusiastic Socialist professor who travelled to Plymouth without a ticket after the nationalisation of the railways. When he was fined by magistrates at Plymouth for doing so, he genuinely pleaded that he only went without a ticket because he assumed that he did not need one as the railways had been nationalised.
Whatever the merits and advantages or disadvantages of nationalisation, no one could argue that employees or consumers have felt a great sense of participation. The manner in which we intend to privatise the company and to see that employees and consumers are given an opportunity of direct participation will be a major social and economic factor. That is why we intend to pursue that policy with enthusiasm.
I suppose that this measure brings about the most major shift from the public sector to the private sector that has taken place in this country, or perhaps in any country. The gas industry is fundamental and has a great record of service to the people. It will be enhanced by being freed from the detailed examination and interference applied to it by Governments of every complexion. I have been guilty of interference, as have my Labour counterparts, throughout the period of nationalisation. If Government are the sole shareholder, they are responsible for a detailed examination of the industry without actually having the expertise, the knowledge or the know-how to do it well. If they had the expertise, it should be employed in the industry and not in an office in Whitehall.
I am delighted that the House has seen the Bill through its Second Reading and through a Committee stage in which debates were cogent and well argued, but in which we had the strength of the argument in those areas in which we defended our position. I rejoice that the Bill went through Report. Now it is before the House for Third Reading. I plead with the House to give a Third Reading to a Bill which will not only be of benefit to the employees and consumers of British Gas, domestic and industrial, but will create a major industrial manufacturing and distributive concern with a role to play at home and abroad, which it will be able to do with greater enthusiasm with its new freedom than it has been able to do since nationalisation took place.

Mr. Stanley Orme: We welcome the Secretary of State back to the fray after 157 hours of silence. I do not know whether 25 March has anything to do with it, but I understand it is the Secretary of State's birthday. I only hope that the House does not give him a birthday present of the Third Reading of the Bill at the end of the debate.
British Gas is one of the most successful of British industries. It is a public monopoly, highly efficient, profitable, and expanding. The Government intend to turn it into a private monopoly without major competition and without the regulation safeguards which we have been advocating throughout the passage of the Bill. There is only one reason for the Government's actions—to sell off the industry on a once-for-all basis purely to raise capital to meet their election strategy.
On Second Reading, I said that there was nothing in the Bill that would improve efficiency or produce cheaper gas. That remains the case. In fact, after 157 hours in Standing Committee we are even more concerned about the future


of the British gas industry, the service to consumers and the rights of employees than we were at the outset. In Committee we sought to enshrine in the legislation rights for consumers and for employees which would at least maintain the present position, and in many cases improve it. We argued continuously that we were not living in a perfect world with British Gas and that improvements could be made under public ownership and a public monopoly. Therefore, we advocated many changes which would be beneficial to the industry, to the people who work in it and to the consumers who depend upon it.
The Government have not accepted any real changes to the Bill. They continue to assure us that the current relationship with consumers and employees will stand, but they refuse to ensure that that will be the case by writing it into the legislation. Several issues discussed in Committee still give cause for concern and are not adequately dealt with by the Bill or the authorisation. I make no apology for returning to those arguments today.
The rights of consumers are still badly met by the Bill, particularly those consumers who already have problems in paying for their fuel. As we stated in Committee, and on Report, we are extremely concerned about the abolition of regional gas consumer councils. Consumers' access to redress needs to be strengthened, not weakened, in the face of a private monopoly. Despite the Government's oft-stated belief that the rights of consumers will not be weakened, we cannot accept that. Without the necessary statutory obligation to ensure lay representation at regional level, the consumer protection offered will be anything but cut price. Conditions during this winter have increased the awareness of both the public and the politicians about fuel policy.
In Committee, the Opposition attempted repeatedly to write into the legislation protection for the poorest consumers—those in most need of fuel and those with the least ability to pay the ever-increasing costs of the fuel. The present code of practice on payment of bills provides some safeguards for those in difficulty. Condition 12 of the authorisation merely states that gas suppliers shall publish codes. We have tried to establish a statutory code with strict but reasonable guidelines for a public gas supplier and safeguards for gas consumers. We are specially worried that a private gas corporation will have rights of entry and of disconnection that at present exist for a publicly owned company. We are moving from a publicly owned company which is answerable to the House under the present legislation to British Gas plc which will not be answerable to the House.
The Under-Secretary told us in Committee that British Gas will continue the present code of practice. For the long-term good of the consumer, this must be strengthened by statute.
A further worry is the price of gas and the standing charges. The authorisation says that the gas corporation must use its best endeavours. We had a legal interpretation of that from the Under-Secretary, who is a solicitor. He made great play of the words "best endeavours". We said then that to use "best endeavours" to keep increases and standing charges below the rate of inflation was not sufficient. We have given the Government two opportunities to clarify this by making it clear in the Bill that standing charges shall not rise by more than the rate of inflation. Both opportunities have been rejected.
According to the Under-Secretary, "best endeavours" amounts to a clear obligation to ensure that standing charges do not increase above the annual retail prices index. If the intention is clear, why do the Government refuse to make it clearer and to allay the fears of consumers, especially the elderly? We know from our correspondence that consumers are not reassured by the Government's statements. Evidence from Age Concern to the Select Committee on Energy made that plain. Age Concern said:
Fuel costs and particularly the standing charge form a high proportion of the expenditure of elderly households, and unexpectedly high bills, service and repair charges are all a drain on the weekly income.
We know that consumers are worried about gas prices. They know that gas charges have risen too fast because the Government have used them to raise extra income, and one of the ways they have done that is through the gas levy. We have gone through the whole of the Bill—Second Reading, Committee and Report, and we have heard the Secretary of State move the Third Reading—and nothing has been said about the continuation of the gas levy. Since its inception, the gas levy has cost consumers £2 billion. Last year alone it was £504 million. That amounts to a surcharge of 4p per therm on gas.
Despite the assertion that the privatisation of British Gas will free the corporation from Government interference, the Government are to maintain the gas levy. This regressive tax is paid by the poorest consumers. The Bill is an opportunity for the Government to make a real difference to the many people whose fuel bills are a source of anxiety, and they can make that difference by removing the tax levy and reducing the price of gas. Again, the Government have rejected that opportunity. It is astonishing that, while the Government are prepared to assert that consumers will be no worse off, they are not prepared to ensure that that will be the case.
The Government have asserted that the network of gas showrooms and the services offered by British Gas to elderly and disabled consumers—such as free safety checks and the provision of special appliances—will continue. They probably will for the time being, but in Committee we sought an assurance that they would continue in the long term.

Mr. Michael Portillo: Is the right hon. Gentleman committing a future Labour Government to the abolition of the gas levy? Could he make that clear?

Mr. Orme: This Government introduced the gas levy. Without hesitation, we support the abolition of the gas levy. The only way to ensure the continuation of showrooms and services is to write into legislation obligations on the public gas supplier. Unfortunately, as on standing charges, we have been given only bland assurances, with nothing to back them up. The hon. Gentleman asked about the gas levy. It is odd that his right hon. Friend said nothing about it from beginning to end of this Bill, and he is not prepared to do so now. On every issue that we raised to strengthen consumers' rights—access to advice, information, redress and safety—the response from the Government has been the same. The Opposition remain unconvinced and so does the British public. It is still the case and nothing that has been said has contradicted it that the only people who will benefit from this massive sale will be the financial marketeers. Throughout the debates we have raised the issue of the market and what will happen.
It is unfortunate for this Government that the City has been under the spotlight in recent months. The public is increasingly aware that all is not well in the financial markets. While unemployment rises and poverty soars, people in the City are making vast profits from the sale of public assets. The Government's privatisation record is coming under heavy scrutiny and criticism.
The sale of British Telecom, the largest sale to date, must be our comparison for the proposed sale of British Gas. The Government have ignored the conclusions of the authoritative Public Accounts Committee report on the sale of BT. They have ignored criticism about their reliance on the advice of merchant bankers, and they have not said that the share price will not once again be undervalued. Despite the reservations of the Public Accounts Committee, the Government are going ahead with the appointment of overseas promoters for the sale of shares. In Japan, the United States and Switzerland, merchant banks are preparing to repeat the financial killing made in the BT flotation.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not pursue that analogy too far. I think he knows that it is out of order on Third Reading of the Gas Bill.

Mr. Orme: This is part 2 of the Bill on the flotation of shares, and in Committee the Government used a comparison with British Telecom. I urge you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to accept that this is a valid comparison.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: On Third Reading of a Bill we are required to confine ourselves to what is in that Bill. References to another piece of legislation are not in order.

Mr. Orme: Obviously, I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I feel that we are putting forward a valid argument. No doubt we shall hear of the vast fees paid in commission to City firms. We shall hear about that after the event, and once again it will be the taxpayer who loses. We saw what happened in previous privatisations. For instance, £200 million was taken out by the City when BT was sold only a few months ago.
The Government have side-stepped the effect of the fall in oil prices on the flotation of British Gas. The Secretary of State referred to oil prices this afternoon, but we want to know what effect those falling oil prices might have on the sale. As we know, the Financial Times reports today that the oil price has now fallen to $12 a barrel. Many pundits believe that it will fall still further. With such a massive sale of public assets at stake, we have the right to know whether the Government have a strategy for dealing with that.
The public are becoming increasingly alarmed at the extent to which the Government are pursuing their privatisation programme. It has no theme or logic. The excuses for it keep changing. The latest is that it is an attempt to encourage people's capitalism. But only 6 per cent. of the population now own shares, and the responses to the Budget show that there will be no significant increase in that number.
The Secretary of State referred to safety, which he knows is a sensitive area. Throughout, we have raised no scare stories but have dealt with safety in a genuine manner because, in changing from a public to a private monopoly, we have a right to ensure that safety is up front in the industry. Throughout, we have sought crucial guarantees

and assurances on safety in the industry. It is not sufficient to alter the call-up time. We must ensure that properly trained staff are available and that the Health and Safety Executive will be properly equipped. We are particularly concerned that the Health and Safety Executive will not be adequately staffed and will be unable to devote crucial time and attention to the supervision of safety in the industry.
We want a specific statement from the Minister about the future staff levels for gas safety in the Health and Safety Executive. As a result of information that we have received, we are worried that the Health and Safety Executive will not necessarily have adequate staff, and it is essential that it should. We want an assurance from the Government that there will be the facilities and the finance to provide such staff.
The Labour party believes that the British Gas Corporation belongs to the nation. As I said or Second Reading, under a Labour Government it will be returned to the public sector. That will be achieved in a way that is consistent with our other economic aims and priorities. We have made it clear that this privatisation has nothing to do with efficiency, profitability or competition. It is a major part of the Government's strategy for the next general election. Without the sale of British Gas, they would not be able to carry it out. It is an outrage that the corporation, which serves 16 million households, is to be used in that way.
We are fundamentally opposed to the Bill, and the British people will come to understand the magnitude of the Government's action. I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the Bill.

Mr. Spencer Batiste: As a former member of the Select Committee on Energy, I want to take this opportunity to welcome the privatisation of British Gas and to wish it well in the private sector. We have just heard all manner of accusations about the Government's motives in seeking this privatisation. But with the example of so many successful privatisations behind us, with so many industries prospering far more effectively in the private sector than ever they did under the control of the Civil Service, it is no longer theory but proven fact that industry does better in the private sector.
We are accused that this is part of our election strategy. Indeed it is part of our election strategy. This latest example of people's capitalism is an important step forward in developing a broadly based property-owning democracy in Britain upon which our future stability and prosperity as a nation depends.
The flotation of British Gas is a particularly important step because it will add sigificantly to the number of private shareholders, which, at 6 per cent. is far too small a proportion of our population compared not just to the United States but to other European countries, and it will add to the size, variety and vigour of the stock market.
The privatisation will be a splendid opportunity for the employees of British Gas to participate in a direct way in the success of their company. Their decision to vote down industrial action on the privatisation issue was in no small measure influenced by the fact this is a far more real and visible way for employees of enterprises to identify with those enterprises than the vague notions of national ownership which have long since been proved to be flawed and ineffective in practice.
I hope, although there is not much evidence of it today, that in time the Labour party will come to accept the policy of privatisation, just as it is now being forced, by the weight of public opinion, to accept our related policy on home ownership.
The debate has been distinguished particularly by the positive and constructive role played by the Select Committee on Energy in its proceedings. The Select Committee has the resources to explore the detailed ramifications of complex Bills in a way that hon. Members on their own cannot. When there is substantial cross-party support on the Energy Select Committee, it behoves the Government to take the points at issue seriously.
One such point at issue is whether there should be in the Bill an obligation to promote energy conservation measures. On balance—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman heard my earlier rebuke. I hope that he will take it into account and confine himself to what is in the Bill.

Mr. Batiste: I am in no way seeking to propose any amendment or to add to the Bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I merely wish to make the point that it was well expressed in Committee that the Bill should carry a clear message to the energy supply industry that energy conservation is important to the House and that if the warnings made during the Bill's passage through the House are not heeded, further legislation to promote the cause of energy efficiency will undoubtedly become necessary.
The major issues that we must now address are, first, those relating to the consumers' interest. The protection of the consumer is one of the most practically important issues that the Government have to face. In my area the North-Eastern gas consumers council has made many constructive suggestions. Inevitably there remain some matters that it and other councils will wish to see pressed in another place, but I congratulate the Government on listening to so many of the representations that have been made to them, and, most particularly, on broadening the remit and referral powers of the new Gas Consumers Council. That has been widely welcomed by all those who care about the gas industry's future, as compared to the Opposition, who seek only to make noise and to create spurious objection.
My next point is critically important. When a large organisation with such extensive market power as British Gas is moved into the private sector, there is the need to promote competition. Gas is competitive with other energy sources, but it is also important to encourage alternative gas suppliers if market forces are to operate effectively. I am delighted that the Government have accepted the amendment tabled in Committee to give the director general responsibility for promoting competition. There are those who would perhaps wish that we had gone further, but, in the final analysis, as we have seen with the privatisation of British Telecom, the vital factor is the calibre and the determination of the people chosen to operate the key watchdog roles.
This is a Third Reading debate as you have already reminded us on several occasions, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I shall be brief. Any Bill of this size and complexity, whose central purpose is so inimical to Labour's concept of state ownership, is undoubtedly capable of indefinite debate and much contrived indignation when finally the

guillotine inevitably falls. The major issues have, I believe, been adequately aired and the Bill is in a reasonably acceptable form, though that need not preclude further adjustment in another place. This measure is a further important plank in our progress towards a property-owning democracy, and I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: We have engaged in many hours of debate on the Bill, but we have not really arrived at a point very substantially different from that from which we set out. The Government have tried to justify the Bill as promoting greater efficiency and wider share ownership. Yet even the hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste), in spite of his eulogy of some abstract theory, acknowledged that there was not enough in the Bill on that issue. The Government have resisted amendments to promote energy efficiency on the spurious ground that it would be unfair to other energy suppliers. That was the basic argument used. I suggest now, as I did in Committee, that the easy way to resolve the matter is to charge all energy producers with responsibility to promote energy efficiency. I am sure that this is something that all parties would support.
Wider share ownership will be achieved, if it is achieved—there are some who feel that the widening of share ownership will be nothing like as great at the end as it looks at the beginning—at the expense of siphoning out of the financial institutions billions of pounds that could have been much better directed to stimulating new enterprise, wealth and jobs. It is really foolhardy of the Government to say that money cannot be taken out of the City for an enterprise such as this without taking it away from other enterprises which might need it more desperately.
Last week I challenged the Under-Secretary of State to say whether there were any market circumstances in which the Government would decide that it was sensible to postpone the flotation of British Gas. After all, they have done it with British Airways, presumably for commercial reasons. At that time, the Minister simply showed his discomforture in the normal way—by hurling a load of abuse at the alliance—but did not answer the question. I think that we are entitled to know whether the Government are determined to float British Gas this autumn, regardless of the market circumstances.
The Secretary of State acknowledged that in his Budget speech the Chancellor told us that he had assumed an oil price of $15. The Secretary of State said that this was not a forecast, but simply an assumption, and I accept that. But today, less than a full week since the Chancellor sat down, the oil price is under $12 and heading for less than $10. Leaving aside the fact that the fall in the oil price since this time last year and, indeed since six months ago, has wiped £5 billion off our net oil exports, will the Minister acknowledge that this has serious implications for the share price of British Gas, which had already been reduced by over £2 billion, according to analysts, even when the price of oil was $15?
I suggest that even if the Government were determined, in principle, to go ahead with privatisation, it would be irresponsible to do so in circumstances where the market is at the bottom of its price and the asset, which at the moment belongs to the nation, is likely to be substantially undervalued. We are entitled to know whether the Government have any views on that.
I shall press this point a little further by asking the Minister to say, when he replies, what valuation for British Gas is assumed in the Chancellor's forecast in the Budget statement that the receipts expected from privatisation in 1986–87 are £4·7 billion. What assumptions have been made about the percentage and value of British Gas included in that figure, and what implications does that have for the next Budget when coupled with the falling oil revenues?
Anyone who is buying shares will clearly have to consider these factors. If I were intending to buy shares in British Gas, which I am not, I would want to know what the future was. I would also want to know what scope there was under the Bill for British Gas, when privatised, to protect itself, as it will instinctively try to do. By protecting itself, I mean using its monopoly position to cushion itself against falling prices. The Government have not supported adequate measures to promote competition and, whatever their protests to the contrary, British Gas will continue to be to all intents and purposes the monopoly supplier of gas in this country. It will be able to abuse that monopoly to protect its position.
I shall give one or two examples. Will the price formula be flexible enough to allow the corporation to keep up prices, for example, to those domestic and commercial users who are committed to gas and have no alternative, while at the same time reducing prices to those industrial users who have made an investment by giving themselves flexibility and are therefore not so vulnerable to the British Gas monopoly? I suggest that private shareholders are likely to press a private gas corporation to take such action if it thinks it can get away with it. Will it be prepared to give incentives to new customers to come on to gas supply, to subsidise their capital investment and to charge that subsidy to existing users of gas? It is not clear from the legislation that the corporation would not be able to do that. Will the director general have the power that he needs to prevent such an appalling abuse?
Those questions have not, I believe, been answered, and I am certainly not satisfied that this is adequate consumer protection.

Mr. Walter Harrison: I am concerned about consumer protection. In fact, I implored my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Cocks) who worked with me for years, to put a question for me in Committee about consumer protection. I should like to ask what protection there will be for the consumer, not on the tariff to be charged, but on the way in which tariff will be collected. Estimation is going on under the present gas boards. What protection will there be for the consumer in connection with estimated bills if the new gas authority refuses to read the meter and simply makes an estimate?

Mr. Bruce: In Committee we pressed for a code of practice, but were not successful in securing it. The Minister will no doubt answer the hon. Gentleman's question more fully.
Consumers and shareholders should be in no doubt that a future Government would be prepared to introduce amending legislation to prevent the sort of abuses that I have outlined. We would certainly be prepared to do so and to strengthen the powers of the director general to acquire the information needed to control such abuses. We would ensure that any information he acquired was published, that hearings were held in public, and that

consumers or their representatives had the right to cross-examine. That is the kind of control, accountability and regulation for which we are looking but which the Government have denied us.
In these circumstances, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will not be surprised to hear that I and my colleagues are not satisfied with this legislatior, even if we were not opposed to the principle in the first place, which we are. The import-export regime which the Government announced very late in Committee is something which shareholders need to take on board. I am not sure that they are really any the wiser about what the Government will do. I do not quarrel with what the Government have said. My only quarrel is over the fact that what was at the end of the day such a sensible decision could not be announced on Second Reading, but was left so late in the deliberations on the Bill.
We would be prepared, since it would be impossible, in my view, to renationalise British Gas even if the Labour party wished to do so, to introduce measures which would expose British Gas to more effective competition. In spite of statements from Labour Members, the Government have not taken the necessary measures to do this, and have not supported initiatives from their Benches either. We would be prepared to consider legislation to break British Gas up into regional companies, and we regret that this has not been properly debated, although the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson), and I put the argument on a number of occasions. The Labour party is intent on keeping British Gas as a central institution, because it hopes to be able to renationalise it and has refused to support us, and the Government have denounced the idea without intelligently arguing against its merits.
We shall make sure that the privilege of owning shares—it is a privilege—in a major utility, which will still be the monopoly supplier of gas, is not a licence to print money. It is reasonable for people to get a fair return. A fair return is one thing, but exploitation is another. None of these questions have been answered by the Government, and none of the assurances that we want have been given. In the light of that, my right hon. Friends and hon. Friends and I will join the Labour party in the Lobby against the Bill.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand that we have at the most 80 minutes left before the Front Bench speakers reply to the debate, and at least 10 right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. The arithmetic will be very obvious.

Mr. Michael Portillo: The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) said that if funds were taken from the City for investment in British Gas, they would not be available for investment elsewhere in British industry. The hon. Gentleman showed that he had entirely missed the point of what is going on with the privatisation programme, which is that in the big issues like British Gas, and British Telecom before it, the Government have appealed to a source of finance that has never before been tapped—the ordinary man in the street investing in shares for the first time. The argument of the hon. Member for Gordon therefore falls flat on its face.
On Second Reading I welcomed the Bill in principle because I thought that privatisation would be good for


British Gas, good for its customers and employers and for the nation. However, I expressed some reservations about the Bill. Today, I have fewer reservations than I did, but I confess that some of them linger. At heart, my reservations are to do with whether the Bill establishes sufficient competition, and my thesis is that it is better to rely on competition to ensure the good of the customer than to rely on any kind of regulation, because competition would always do the job better for the customer.
I have three main concerns. The first is the competition that British Gas will face in obtaining gas supplies from the sources at which they are produced, in particular from the North sea. I wish to see British Gas having to bid against the competitors to win gas in the first place. Towards the end of the Committee, the Government made a statement about imports and exports of gas that clarified the position and gave us the basis that we needed to judge the Bill as a whole.
The Government statement was not exactly the statement for which I had been hoping, because I had hoped for an entirely free regime of imports and exports. Nevertheless, the statement was widely welcomed and was held to be a marked improvement on the previous position. In particular, it allows the Government to judge applications for the export of gas on a case-by-case basis. I wait to see how this will work out in practice.
I have two suggestions for the Government. First, will they make it clear that any company is as free as is British Gas to import gas, so that any other company can apply for imports? My second suggestion is that the Government should soon authorise an export of gas to demonstrate to British Gas that this is more than a theoretical possibility and that it can be carried out in practice, as that would have a dramatic effect on the way in which British Gas conducts its business.
My second concern was that the regulator should have a specific duty to promote competition in the supply of gas. Here, I am delighted to say that the Government graciously accepted my amendment, and I am pleased about that. It could prove crucial. I agree heartily with my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) that the important thing is the choice of person who will be the regulator. If the right person is chosen, as I am sure he will be, he will bear this duty in mind when applying it to a whole range of decisions—for example, in judging disputes that occur over the common carriage of gas by British Gas for third parties and on the supply of back-up gas from British Gas to private suppliers.
My third concern is about the prohibition of anticompetitive practices by British Gas. In Committee, I suggested specific prohibitions of anti-competitive practice—that was my first line of defence. My second line of defence was to oblige British Gas more clearly to spell out from where it derived its profits and where its costs would be spread among the various regional activities so that we can judge more accurately whether cross-subsidy was occurring. I failed to convince the Government or the Committee on this point, and my right hon. Friend the Minister in particular sought to rely on the Competition Act and the Fair Trading Act. He believed that there are sufficient powers available for all these concerns to be taken care of. I still have some doubts, but I hope that, in the fulness of time, I shall be proved wrong, and the Government right.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State often says that nationalisation requires Ministers and civil servants to run businesses, and they are unqualified to do so. That is the best shorthand reason for privatisation. Even where, after privatisation, the extent of competition is limited, pressure from shareholders, bankers and customers can be exerted much more effectively. One cannot mimic those forces while the company remains in the state sector.
I have a feeling that, in its heart of hearts, the Labour party is not as far from us on this as it would have us believe. I have a feeling that the Morrisonian ideals of nationalisation have, in practice, disappointed all of us. People do not feel that they own the British Gas Corporation, nor do the customers of British Gas feel that they are getting a high level of service because the employees in the industry feel that they are serving their fellow man and that they all own the industry in common. The employees of British Gas have lacked the incentive of competition, and it is that element that the Bill seeks to introduce.
I welcome the Bill now because I believe that it will help the customers of British Gas, its employees and the nation. To a large extent, some of these virtues have been recognised by the Labour party, although the Opposition spokesman, who spoke so charmingly in the Standing Committee, the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), went through the motions of opposing privatisation root and branch. In practice, Labour Members went through those lines rather as though they were speaking lines in a play, and not giving them tremendous conviction. It is a tremendous tribute to my right hon. Friend and the Government that they have argued and won the case for privatisation, and even convinced a number of Labour Members.

Mr. Michael Cocks: I apologise to the Secretary of State for not being here for his opening speech. The decision not to come into the Chamber was not inadvertent. I felt that, had I been here, my parliamentary courtesy would have been overridden, and I would have pointed out to him that his Third Reading speech was longer than his contributions in Committee.
I was surprised at the speech made by the hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste), because he branded himself as a parliamentary scavenger picking up fag ends. He was not even on the Committee, but he had to be here to speak before those of his colleagues who had served on the Committee had spoken, to make his Central Office points, which were hardly worth the occasion.
In Committee, I christened the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo) the hon. Member for Enfield, Cold Feet. I did not intend to propagate that title, but, once again, he has shown himself to be running for cover, trying to play both ends against the middle and managing to ensure for himself some future reincarnation as an Opposition Front Bench spokesman.
The Bill puts me in mind of the old-style Western films where the main street, which is the subject of the film, was made up of elaborate sets—banks, hotels, and so on. There may have been an elaborate front, but behind it there were just a few props holding the whole edifice up, and there was no substance to the buildings. The Bill has been produced without the thorough-going research which was in hand and had borne fruit when the industry was nationalised.
The main point of reference in Committee was the Heyworth report, which is an analysis of the state of the gas industry at the end of the war with details of the number of undertakings throughout the country, their distribution, and the great pockets where there was no gas supply whatsoever. That was only one of several major studies which led to the nationalisation of the industry. However, the industry is being dismantled and put out to privatisation without any corresponding research.
Time and again in Committee we asked what estimates had been made by the Government and the Civil Service over various aspects of the Bill. Each time, when the verbiage was stripped away from the reply, the answer was nothing. Therefore, the Bill is based on inadequate research and thought and is really a doctrinaire measure to try to widen the base of the Government's appeal. It is the fulfilment of an election promise made without propper research. Indeed, when I pressed him, the Under-Secretary of State for Energy, although a former candidate for Bristol, South, did not realise that the Conservative party headquarters had been moved from Merrywood road to North street in Bedminster, the premises which were converted into Regal Amusements.
When we look at the provisions of the Bill, we are concerned about the inadequate guarantees about safety. It is important that during the debate we put it on record that we are by no means satisfied that the bland assurances that have been given about the privatised company will hold water in reality.
On Report I referred to the flexibility and quick response we now enjoy when we contact chairmen of the respective gas boards, and I gave a particular example. I am happy to tell the House that my confidence was reinforced when the matter that I had raised was dealt with within 24 hours. That is the sort of service that the Government are placing in jeopardy.
Therefore, while at this stage we cannot make any changes to the Bill before it goes to another place, I think it is important for us to place on record our fears and reservations about what might happen. God forbid that there should be a major disaster when the industry is privatised. If there is, I hope it will be recognised that the Opposition placed their reservations on record and that, if anybody is found wanting in the scrutiny and preparation of the Bill, it is the Government.
In view of your comments earlier, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall conclude my remarks. I hope that in another place the reservations we now have about the provisions in the Bill concerning safety will receive further scrutiny, and that possibly, even at that late stage, the Government will make a concession which could give us at least some reassurance that note has been taken of all the representations.

Dr.MichaeClark: I should like to make a short contribution taking account of the statistics you gave us, Mr. Deputy Speaker, about time and the number of people wanting to speak.
I wish to welcome the Bill on Third Reading, having been through a long and contentious Committee. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) in endorsing the principle of privatisation and I believe that this Bill is an important step along that road. I should like to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on introducing the Bill and his colleagues for steering it

through Committee. If it is proper, I should like to say a few words of congratulation to the Opposition on the way in which they showed us in Committee the knowledge they have of the Bill. They fought it hard, but in so doing, they showed that the Bill had been well thought out. The majority of points they were criticising were incorporated into the Bill in any case.
The two major points I should like to make are about competition and regulation. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo) has already said that, if the competition were stronger, perhaps we would not have to have so much regulation. The Bill has been prepared in such a way that, wherever possible, notice has been taken of the need to encourage competition. The Bill is written to allow for competition from other gas companies should other companies ever be formed which could provide gas at domestic house level rather than just providing large tranches of gas through the common carrier. We know that the gas industry has been subject to competition for many years from other fuels, but that competition is always subject to price, the technology available in the industry using the other fuels and the availability of other fuels.
Gas is not the easiest commodity to bring into industry or domestic houses. Despite that, over the years the gas industry has been able to obtain 85 per cent. of the heating market in this country. That shows that the gas industry has been competitive in the past, and there is no reason to doubt that it will continue to be competitive in the future.
The Bill provides for other gas suppliers to use the common carrier system to supply gas to customers throughout the country. I expressed some reservations in Committee about how often the common carrier would be used, bearing in mind the fact that British Gas may be inclined to over-price the use of that facility. Even now, if there is surplus capacity on the common carrier, I believe that the charge for using it should be on a short-run, marginal cost basis.
We know that the gas industry was investigated by Deloitte, Haskins and Sells in June, 1983, and the achievements of the gas industry, which are recognised in this Bill, were stated in that report. It congratulated British Gas on the conversion from town gas to natural gas and the way in which British Gas has increased its market share over the years.
I should like to come to a point made by the right hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Cocks). Deloitte, Haskins and Sells also mentioned the fine safety record of British Gas and its proud industrial relations record. In my experience, the safety record in private industry is second to none. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has any need to fear that, because British Gas will be privatised, the safety record will in any way be less than it achieved as a nationalised industry.
The record of the industry is a credit to the executives who have run it in the past, the work force and the people throughout the whole of British Gas who have been involved—from connecting pipes and digging holes through to setting prices, marketing and running the whole organisation. It is also a credit to the sponsoring Department, the Department of Energy. I am sure that all those things will continue when British Gas is privatised.
The Director General of Gas Supply will be primarily responsible for regulation. From time to time, he will have to use the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, but in practice regulation will be his responsibility. He will, of


course, work in conjunction with the Secretary of State for Energy. Indeed, I thank the Government for accepting in Committee an amendment that I and my hon. Friends put forward, whereby the relationship between the Director General of Gas Supply and the Secretary of State would be brought out into the open, so that we could know of the instructions and communications that passed between them when regulating that large privatised gas concern.
In the Bill, the Director General of Gas Supply is required to encourage competition, to be unbiased towards British Gas—it must ensure that it is fair in its dealings with all gas suppliers—and be customer-oriented. Moreover, under clause 33, the director general must ensure that gas is continuously available to gas users. There is a danger that there will be a gap in the supply of gas in the early 1990s, but I am sure that the director general will take that into account.
The main regulator used by the Director General of Gas Supply will be price. The price is being fixed by a formula which is now well known. It seems complicated, but careful study reveals it to be not too bad at all—[Interruption]. The formula is
(RPI-X)+Y+K.
It is not too difficult at all. But price control alone will not encourage profit levels to be kept at the low level required if the consumer is to get a fair deal. Therefore, I feel that the director general, working within the Bill's terms of reference, will want to consider publishing the profits made by British Gas. The information could be used for control of the organisation. It could also be used to judge how the formula should be reviewed in 1992, and could show that there was not excess cross-subsidisation between the various parts of a privatised British Gas.
When price alone is used as the regulator, we must ensure that it does not hide windfall profits that might arise through the price of other energy sources rising faster than the price of gas, causing gas to be used more than those other energy sources. That can only be checked by having some knowledge of the profits made. I am confident that, in the short term, the director general will control and regulate effectively. In the longer term, regulation will be reviewed by the Secretary of State. However, I am sure that we shall have a thriving and most acceptable privatised gas industry, and I and my constituents look forward to the issue of British Gas shares later this year. Indeed, many of my constituents have told me that they want to buy those shares. This whole venture represents one more step in the promotion of popular capitalism which has so caught the imagination of this country.

Mr. Allan Rogers: We have just heard two very convoluted speeches from Conservatives Members. On the one hand they ask for market forces and competition to be allowed their head, and on the other they want the regulator to have more powers to regulate the industry, once privatised. I am not sure what they really want, or what they are pursuing in their dream of privatisation.
But it is certain that the Secretary of State did not come clean today about the real reasons for privatisation. We have not heard from Conservative Members, including the hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) who is just about to leave the Chamber, what those reasons are. Indeed, during

the hon. Gentleman's flight of fantasy, he paid tribute to the fact that the Government had paid attention to the Select Committee's views. I am sorry to disappoint him, but the Government ignored the Select Committee's views to the extent that they introduced the Bill and put it into Committee when they know that the Select Committee's report would be published. The Government completely ignored that report. I am sorry to deflate the hon. Gentleman's ego over his membership of that Select Committee, but the Government clearly do not think much of the Select Committee's recommendations. They even ignore the Public Accounts Committee, of which I am a member, when it tells them, time and again, that they are ripping off the public by privatising our state industries.
The Secretary of State did not give the real reasons for privatisation because he will not stand up publicly and admit that it is a rip-off. The fact that privatisation is a rip-off can be demonstrated quite easily by considering the seven main industries that have been privatised. It is clear that they could have been sold for almost £2 billion more than was achieved in their flotations. However, we shall return to that point later.
I am amazed by the hypocrisy of Conservative Members. They pay tribute to British Gas as it now exists, to the workers and its organisation, and then say that they want to sell it. Why do they want to sell such a large industry, which is very profitable? It provides about £500 million a year through the gas levy and makes profits of about £1·5 billion. Why do Conservative Members want to sell it? It needs to be sold solely to line the pockets of their City friends. For example, their stockbroker friends will gain about £300 million.
The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo) is yawning. Perhaps he does not want to be party to this charade. Oddly enough, he opposed the Government at certain points in Committee. He did not have the courage to vote against the Government. At some stage, the Minister would say that he would look at the matter, and the hon. Gentleman would back off. Indeed, the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) and other hon. Members were told by Government Whips to back off in Committee, although they knew that certain parts of the Bill were nonsense.
The hon. Member for Elmet said that private industry was better than public industry. I wish that that was so, and that the history of nationalisation in Britain showed that Labour Governments had taken profitable industries into public ownership. But the history of nationalisation in this country shows that the Labour party has had to take into public ownership corrupt and badly run private industries in order to protect jobs and our economic structure. That is why we had to nationalise the coal, car and aerospace industries. We did so not because of any blind dogma or ideology—unlike the Conservative Government—but because those industries were bankrupt, and we wanted to protect the many jobs involved.
The Government do not care about the jobs of those involved. They will talk about them, but when it comes to the crunch, they do not care. Their justification for provisions affecting consumers and safety is always that market forces and competition will right any wrongs. I believe that the Government are wrong. Throughout the Committee stage the Government argued that all would be the same after vesting day. The argument is that British Gas plc will be a marvellous private company because the public corporation is a good and profitable company.
That does not follow. British Gas exists to provide this country with cheap, clean fuel and to contribute to the general economy of the country in the public interest. The motive of British Gas plc—the reason for its existence as a private company—will be to make a profit. The possibility of the public interest being a major feature in any decision made by the company will go by the hoard. In no private company in this country, when decisions are being made in the board room, does anyone ask, "Do we make a profit, or do we act in the public interest?" With relatively small companies that is OK, although I do not think that we can afford them. Many decisions are made in private companies on the basis of the pursuit of profit rather than the public interest. We can swallow that.
However, we are now talking about a major industry. The present-day value of the industry is about £17,000 million. Last year there was a profit of well over £1 billion, and there was also the gas levy of £504 million. The rate of return on assets was 25 per cent. Ninety three thousand people work for the company and over a quarter of a million are employed in providing services and equipment. British Gas is not a little back-street operation in which private interest can be permitted to be the dominant feature and the money boys to make their cash; it is a major enterprise. If this major industry is badly handled in the private sector, the effect will be enormous.
I am quite sure that British Gas plc will not deliberately break safety standards. However, neither did Union Carbide in Bhopal, and neither did the private coal companies, when under private enterprise they killed 53,000 people.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. David Hunt): Disgraceful. We are talking about British Gas.

Mr. Rogers: It is all very well for the Minister to scoff at what I say, but that is what happened in the pursuit of profits. Many decisions were made in coal mines that caused the death of miners. I can provide chapter and verse. One need only to go to the Library to see how many of my constituents—and indeed some members of my family—suffered as a result of the mindless pursuit of profit in the coal mines.
It will not happen deliberately, but if there is a sin of omission rather than a sin of commission, it will be a great sin. The Government had the opportunity to put some statutory safety requirements in the Bill. They could have tightened up on safety. It is no good the Government saying that the matter has been covered in the same way as it was in the case of British Telecom. As I said in Committee, telephones do not blow up but gas installations can. Unless the highest standards are maintained there may be tragedies, as there have been in the past. No one will have designed those tragedies—accidents are accidents—but it is incumbent on us as legislators to ensure that the possibilities of accidents are restricted.
Constraints of time prevent us from taking up some major issues that were not fully developed in Committee. Great problems will arise. There is the issue of competition. What will happen to an organisation with a built-in infrastructure? There are pricing policies, market development, tarrification and resource development. What is to stop British Gas plc investing in villas in Spain or north Africa rather than ensuring adequate future

resources and development in the North sea, or in the development of liquefaction and gasification processes so that we can import from other parts of the world when North sea gas runs out? Those are all aspects of a big unknown. With the privatisation of the gas industry, we are taking an awful step into the unknown.

Mr. Peter Rost: The Bill has been improved since Second Reading, although not as much as I would have liked. My hon. Friends the Members for Elmer (Mr. Batiste), for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo) and for Rochford (Dr. Clark) have eloquently outlined some of the matters that still concern us. However, I believe that the Bill has improved enough to be given a Third Reading tonight and a fair wind. I hope that when the Bill reaches another place the Government will be obliged to reconsider some of those important matters, especially those to which the Select Committee drew attention. The Bill may then be improved still further.
Part II covers the sale of shares to the public. I am very concerned that the Government's privatisation programme should not be discredited. I believe that it is fundamental to our future, to the economic strategy and to the improvement of our performance that the privatisation programme should succeed and that it should not be damaged by criticisms such as were made by the Public Accounts Committee of some of the previous public sales.
We might as well be honest and admit that in the Government's eagerness to sell other nationalised industries, miscalculations and misjudgments were made. We want to avoid any criticisms in connection with this sale. We must ensure that there is no repetition of what took place when, during the speculation, some in the City made far too easy profits.
I hope that when part II is applied and the shares are sold, the Government will provide a genuine opportunity for the small investors, and especially the employees of British Gas, to have not just the first but the juiciest bite. I believe that many of my colleagues would, like me, be most disappointed if there were to be a undignified stampede of speculative stags, as with some previous privatisations. That would seriously damage the whole concept of wider share ownership and the privatisation programme.
Every sale—especially a large one—must provide a tempting discount on what experts regard as the market price. It is therefore especially important that if there is to be a discount on the market price that discount should go primarily to the employees of the company and to the small shareholders—in other words, the customers—rather than to underwriters and to overseas institutions, as has happened in the past. It is most important that the offer for sale should be organised on such a basis that the majority of the shares go to employees and to small shareholders rather than the larger investors.
I have one suggestion which I hope my right hon. Friend will consider. I hope that this proposal will enable the Government to overcome the embarrassments of previous sales, which had to be priced on an arbitrary basis—always difficult if not impossible—with the result that there was a large premium and the taxpayer was deprived of a fair proportion of the revenue. A different form of pricing was required.
Is it really necessary that all the shares should be sold on the same day? Why cannot the offer for sale be on a


open-ended basis, in the same way as the Government sell gilt edged on tap and in the same way as the Govenment sold their BP shares in tranches? Why cannot the first tranche be worth only £1 billion—10 per cent. or 20 per cent. of British Gas shares—in order to establish a market price?
The first tranche could be allocated primarily to small applicants, in the same way as British Telecom shares were allocated to small applicants and employees. If a premium developed, as it is bound to develop, the bulk of the benefit would still be in the hands of the Government. The rest of the stock could then be sold on a tap basis, on rising prices. As demand developed, the Government's nominated brokers for the sale could subsequently sell, on rising prices, to the large investors and to the institutions the bulk of the issue, once a market price had been established from which the small investors would benefit.
What is the rationale of obliging all the stock to be sold in one indigestible gulp? If it were sold in tranches, would it not make the huge cost of the underwriting unnecessary and would it not provide a fairer total value for the taxpayer without depriving the small shareholder of a fair investment?
Furthermore, would it not reduce the risk of having to price the issue at the wrong price? Only a small proportion of the issue would be offered for sale at the initial launch. If the price of the 10 per cent. or 20 per cent. that was offered for sale was too low, at least the Government would not be subjected to the sort of criticisms to which they would be subjected if the price were too low and everything was sold on that day.
As the initial tranche that was offered for sale would be allocated primarily to small applicants and to employees, because they would be given priority, it would ensure the Government's objective of promoting wider share ownership. The first tranche at the lowest price would go to those who ought to have the shares—employees and small shareholders. Subsequent sales on a tap basis would mean that whatever stock was then available would be sold at the genuine market price, which would probably be a higher price, to the larger investor.
I urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy to consider this type of package if he wants to avoid further criticism of a privatisation issue on a large scale depriving the taxpayer of the full benefit of the sale and not ensuring that the small investor gets a fair deal.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) raised a very important issue at the beginning of the debate. He referred to the fact that several issues have not been dealt with adequately during the proceedings on the Bill. The Opposition are still concerned about health and safety. We are not sure that the Health and Safety Executive will be able to police this private monopoly with the care that is needed.
The factory inspectorate is 35 per cent. below the recommended staffing levels that were accepted by this Government in 1979. If the safety aspects of the Bill are to be enforced, the Government must provide the resources to back them up. My right hon. Friend today asked for those assurances, and we shall not be satisfied if they are not given this evening. We have not been

persuaded by Ministers that the Health and Safety Executive will be able, with its present staffing levels, to carry out the increased responsibilities that are being laid upon it by the Government. In fact, the opposite is the case.
Since 1979 the Health and Safety Executive has been given more work to do but has been provided with fewer resources with which to do it. Its field force has been cut by over 25 per cent. However, since 1979 it has been given additional responsibilities. It has to enforce new regulations which are more time-consuming to enforce than the old regulations. In 1974, the inspectors were expected to carry out the inspection of 240,000 premises. By 1984, they were expected to carry out the inspection of 800,000 premises, although their numbers had decreased. They are able to visit some premises only once a year. They are able to visit other premises only once every 10 years. How will the Government ensure, therefore, that the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 is extended in order further to protect the public unless the strength of the Health and Safety Executive is greatly increased?
Those who work for the Health and Safety Executive are at the end of their tether. They cannot cope now with basic inspections and they have to abandon potential risks that would have been a very high priority only a few years ago. In 1981, when gas safety was the responsibility of the Department of Energy, there were 30 prosecutions. Since the Health and Safety Executive has taken over that responsibility, there have been only two prosecutions. That is not an indictment of the inspectors. They cannot accept further responsibilities without an increase in their numbers.
The Chief Inspector of Factories has issued guidance to the inspectors. He tells them not to keep a low profile but he expects his instructions to be maintained. They are to minimise the heavy burdens that could be placed on the resources of the Health and Safety Executive. The 530 factory inspectors operating in the field will have all these new responsibilities placed upon them. The Government want to give them even more responsibilities. Is that a responsible approach to a difficult problem? Any objective observer would say that it is not.
The answer is not to abolish the laws on health and safety, as Lord Young of Graffham has promised. We have yet to receive an assurance that that proposal is not to be taken seriously. At the very least, the staff of the Health and Safety Executive should be increased by about 50 per cent. That was promised by a Conservative Government. In the light of the anxiety about safety that we have expressed throughout the proceedings on the Bill, we hope that the Government will initiate moves that will ensure such an increase.
The Secretary of State for Energy told us this afternoon that the employees are being promised direct participation in their industry. However, according to a TUC report that was published this week, privatisation has led to fewer jobs and worse terms and conditions of employment. How can the Government claim, therefore, that the employees will be better off? The TUC says that there has been significant job shedding in companies that have been privatised or in companies that are candidates for privatisation. Associated British Ports has cut its work force by about one fifth. British Aerospace has lost 10,000 jobs since privatisation. Cable and Wireless shed one fifth of its United Kingdom staff in the year after privatisation.


British Telecom has embarked on a staff cutback. The report shows that industrial relations and union facilities have become worse.
This provides a warning to employees in the gas industry and in other industries where privatisation is threatened. Free shares and other inducements are no substitute for adequate rights and conditions of work or, indeed, for the loss of jobs.

Mr. Tom Sackville: When I spoke during the Second Reading debate on the Bill I acknowledged that this could put me at the mercy of the Chairman of the Committee of Selection. By that time it had begun to leak out that members of the Opposition were, for some reason better known to themselves, affecting ignorance of the many virtues of the Bill and that the Committee stage could last longer than the piece of legislation which I was invited to consider this morning, The Professions Supplementary to Medicine (Winding up of Remedial Gymnasts Board) Order of Council 1986, the proceedings on which lasted from 10.30 am to 10.31 am. The reason I exposed myself to these dangers was the fact that the Bill is one of a limited number of Bills dealt with by this House since I entered in 1983 on which I can express unreserved approval.
I sought to catch your eye, Mr Deputy Speaker, not only for the opportunity to wish the Secretary of State and the Opposition Whip a happy birthday but to express to the House that, during the past few weeks since the Second Reading debate, it has become clear to me that there are no reasons why British Gas should stay in public ownership—whether on the grounds of safety or the interests of the employees or the consumer.
When one considers the history of British industry one cannot pretend that there are any benefits flowing from public ownership, especially within our economy. Rather than benefits we have witnessed a long series of cases of decay, inefficiency, lack of positive management, terrible industrial relations, subsidies and interference from politicians. No one is criticising the current management of British Gas or indeed, criticising the work force, 500 of whom work in my constituency. No one will claim that there will be a sudden, overnight transformation in the fortunes of British Gas.
We believe, however, that British Gas, in private hands, will attract new dynamic management—it will be controlled by people who are qualified to control major commercial enterprises and not by politicians or civil servants who are clearly not qualified to do so—and it will offer wide employee participation with its attendant benefits.
The Bill is not about lining the pockets of the City as has been claimed, nor is it about adding lustre to the Chancellor's Budget. The Bill is meant to ensure that gas continues to be supplied to British industry and to the British people as efficiently as possible and at the most competitive price. We shall, therefore be able to take the fullest advantage of the energy resources available to us.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I am rather flabbergasted by that last contribution to our proceedings. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville) did not grace our Committee with speeches of

a similar nature. I think that he found some difficulty in putting to the House reasons why the Bill will be acceptable.
The Bill is not paltry, as it represents the privatisation of a huge corporation. The arguments which must be addressed to the Bill go further than the simple issue of privatisation. I take up the challenge which the hon. Member for Erewash (Mr. Rost) made to the Minister and the Government when he said that they should look carefully at the way in which British Gas is to be put on to the market. Frankly, it is a scandal that over the past couple of years huge amounts of public cash have been virtually given away by the lack of adequate pricing of shares.
The hon. Member for Erewash made his contribution and quite wisely departed, but I think that he failed to take into account the reason why British Gas is being privatised in one unit and a huge dollop of shares will be put on the market at the same time. The answer is simple, and I do not think the Government will honestly try to deny it. The Government need the £5 billion, or whatever will be achieved, by the sale of the shares for the next Budget and for the general election. That political priority has blinded the Government to some of the other changes which were necessary in the legislation.
One of the serious failings of the legislation is the lack of provision for proper tight and tough regulations and a competition policy. We should have had one or the other, but, during the course of the Bill, we have achieved neither. The regulations are weak, and, as the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) rightly said, must be tightened up. There is no prospect of any competition from other supply companies.
One has only to consider the way in which the oil companies have slammed the door in the Chancellor's face to understand the lack of influence that the Government will have once the ownership of this huge monopoly passes into the private sector. I am concerned about pricing and the supply of gas, because overall production is not sound. We will lose along the way on the purchase of equipment.
My main objection to the legislation is the centralisation that it entails. The Scottish Council Development and Industry has sent all Scottish Members—the remarks are especially addressed to their Lordships in another place—a further document in which it draws attention to the need to tackle the centralisation issue. It states:
privatisation plans should involve efficient service to consumers and management of resources in Scotland. The Council believes that the optimum development of the business is best achieved with devolved management. Even the existing level of devolved management is not secured by the Bill.
I find it interesting that hon. Members and members of the Select Committee who have addressed us this evening have bypassed or even debased their position as elected Members of this House. They have said that there are serious defects but that they are prepared to give the Bill a Third Reading so that the unelected House—the one which exists by patronage of succession—will be able to do a job which they do not have the political courage to carry out. That is a commentary on the way in which we run our affairs.
The Government have made serious mistakes with the Bill. They have been driven to this measure on a timetable that has been far too fast. They have adopted a structure that will be dangerous and damaging because of the level


of centralisation, and they have failed to look after the interests and safety of consumers. They have done this for party political reasons—to win, or in the hope of winning, the next election. Over the past four months we have been debating privatisation. I venture to suggest that once this huge private monopoly is in force, within four or five years we will be debating the need to break it up, in the same way as the American telephone system was broken up.
The Labour party has made a mistake in assuming that it is better to keep the private monopoly in one unit for the purpose of nationalisation. The Labour party is taking a gamble—whether it will be able to afford to take over the monopoly, or indeed whether it will be in government at the next election. I had hoped that the Labour party would recognise the need for adequate decentralisation. Unfortunately, the Government have refused to admit that basic principle. At the end of the day, Conservative Members, who at one time were dedicated to competition, will feel that they have betrayed the interests and longstanding philosophy of their own party.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: The House and the country are fully aware of what the Bill is all about. It is not about efficiency and consumer protection; it is about political dogma. It is concerned with attracting finance for the Government and winning votes at the next election. The Government hope to achieve that by using this vast amount of money to reduce taxes and to kid the electorate that they have fulfilled their election manifesto. It is purely and simply political dogma.
The Government are selling off the nation's assets, as has been said time and again, at a price well below market value. To use a popular cliché, they are selling £10 notes for £5. That is what will happen. It is an absolute scandal that the nation's assets can be sold off in this way.
All hon. Members are aware that the Bill allows 15 per cent. of the total assets to be purchased by people abroad. That may not appear to be a large percentage. Although I would not care to put a specific figure on it, it could amount to £1,000 million. Therefore, British Gas could be owned by people abroad to the extent of £1,000 million. If the Conservative Government are prepared to do that purely and simply to fulfil their political dogma, the British public will undoubtedly have taken note of it.
The Bill has proceeded with indecent haste in Committee and on Report. We all know what happened in the early days, but I am concerned about the Government's complete disregard of the Select Committee's recommendations. The Select Committee considered the Bill at length and in depth and made unanimous recommendations, although it has a built-in Conservative majority. That has proved to me that the Government have no regard for the work of Select Committees.
Conservative members of that Select Committee must face the biggest embarrassment. On 13 March a headline in The Guardian declared that the report stage would be unique because every member bar one of the Select Committee had signed amendments which would embarrass the Government. Indeed, we all looked forward to that unique occasion. It was the first time that a Select Committee had tabled amendments to a major Bill. We looked forward to the courage of those hon. Members who

signed the amendments, but what did we find? The evening when the Chairman of the Select Committee moved the amendments, only one Conservative member of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Erewash (Mr. Rost), had the courage to vote. Apart from the hon. Gentleman and the Chairman, none of the other Select Committee members had even the decency to come to the Chamber and listen. They have done a great disservice to Select Committees.
We have always been aware of the Government's attitude. Indeed, the Secretary of State went on record a few weeks ago saying what he thinks about Back-Bench interference in Select Committees. He is shaking his head now, but that was widely reported. Those Conservative Members who supported the Select Committee's recommendations and signed the amendments have done a great disservice to Select Committee procedures. They have become a myth. If "hypocrisy" were not an unparliamentary word, I would probably use it.
I fully concede that the amendment about competition by the director general is welcome, although it could have gone further. The name of the organisation was changed to the Gas Consumers Council, but other amendments have been only minor. Indeed, the Bill remains almost as it began, and obviously that was the Committee's intention.
Many outstanding aspects are still to be dealt with, and we can only hope that they will be dealt with in another place. There is the problem of standing charges. We have heard constantly about "best endeavours". The Secretary of State and the Minister have given us assurances about that phrase. If "best endeavours" is legally binding, why do they not make it a statutory responsibility under the Bill? That would not be a hardship. People are not confident that that phrase is legally binding. The Secretary of State in his evidence to the Select Committee said that he was worried about that aspect, and that, as far as he understood it, as a layman, it was hard lines if one could not cope. For the life of me, I cannot understand why the Government will not accept that "best endeavours" should be a statutory responsibility. I hope that the Government will also give further consideration to codes of practice.
The Government continue their programme of selling the nation's assets. It means wealth for their supporters, and many of their supporters had better support the Tory party with contributions during the election campaign.

Mr. Peter Pike: I am pleased to have this final opportunity on Third Reading to speak against the Bill. Some Conservative Members seem to be under the illusion that we in the Labour party are not fully opposed to the privatisation of British Gas. We must make it clear that they are 100 per cent. wrong, that we are 100 per cent. committed to the public ownership of British Gas, and 100 per cent. opposed to the Bill.
However, I agree with one statement made by the Secretary of State in his opening speech. He referred to the present form of public ownership perhaps not having lived up to what some people expected it to achieve in 1945. I accept that in 1986 we may well need to consider certain differences when the Labour Government take organisations back into public ownership. We need to ensure, for example, that the industry is far more involved in and better serves both consumers and employees, as well as the nation, than it may have appeared to do in the past.
We must convince the electorate that we are not in favour of public ownership and opposed to privatisation, such as this, purely because of dogma, but because it is in the nation's best interests as we can use the industry to the nation's best advantage through public ownership.
The Bill is not in the nation's interest. The nation will suffer when the Bill receives its Third Reading, approval in the other place and, ultimately, Royal Assent. The Government are selling the industry to fulfil their political dogma and because they need money to finance either public expenditure before the general election or tax cuts. Whichever they choose, they can use the proceeds from British Gas only once. One can use an asset only once. The Government have repeatedly failed to tell the nation and the House that, and to say what they will do to close the gap of the £1·5 billion profit which British Gas at present makes for the nation. It is perfectly proper, fair and reasonable that a profitable public industry should be allowed to use that profit to subsidise some aspect of public service that can never run at a profit. I have no objection to that type of cross-subsidy. If that is Socialism and public ownership, I am proud to stand for it. I look forward to the day when we have a Government which will take this important industry back into public ownership.
It is true that the Government's policy on gas nationalisation is aimed at short-term financial gain and that that policy is long-term financial folly and nonsense. This Government, who pride themselves on being the economists and financiers of the world, should recognise that their policy is nonsense and not in the interests of the nation.
The Government gave no account to the Standing Committee of the amount that they expected to receive from this biggest ever sale of a publicly owned industry. It is almost certain that we will not get the true value for it. If recent privatisations are anything to go by, the people who will make the money will be the financiers in the City and the friends of the Conservative Government. The people whom the Government represent will not benefit.
The Bill is not in the national energy interests of this country. Energy is so important and fundamental to the nation that it should be controlled by the Government. It should therefore remain under public control and should not be in private hands. A publicly owned energy industry should pursue policies of conservation and develop new fields. These policies will suffer once the Bill receives the Royal Assent. British Gas has a vital role to play in developing substitute natural gas supplies which will be essential in the next century when the natural gas in the North sea and the Irish sea runs out. We will need substitute sources of supply, and they should be provided by an organisation under public control, not in the private sector.
The Government have said several times that they need to remove the shackles from the industry. They believe that the Bill will do that. However, this Government have actually imposed more shackles on publicly owned industries than any other Government. The Government have said that British Gas must sell the Wytch Farm oilfield and that British Gas could not buy Sleipner gas. There are many other examples of how the Government have shackled the industry—for example, through the gas levy.
If the Government believed that management and the control of British Gas had been too restrictive and that there had been too much interference by the Government

—if one accepts that that argument is true—they could have removed the restrictions. They could have done that without having a Bill for privatisation and by giving more freedom to British Gas.
In Committee, the Government repeatedly praised the record of British Gas. However, one wonders why they now need to put that industry into private ownership, especially if the industry has served the nation so well. I would certainly support 100 per cent. the idea that the industry has served the nation well.
The Bill is detrimental to the consumer. Although an important amendment was moved by the Government on Report, in the face of considerable pressure by my hon. Friends in Committee, we are still very anxious about the Bill. We believe that profit will become more important than service, that showrooms will be under threat and that corners will be cut. The Secretary of State said in his opening speech that he believed that commercial judgments would force the new owners of British Gas to conform to the levels of safety to which I have referred. Although I accept that that is likely to be true, there is no reason why amendments on safety aspects should not be in the Bill, to ensure that such measures are carried out.
We have ended up with a bad Bill, and I hope that hon. Members will vote against it. I look forward to the day when British Gas is taken back into public ownership.

Mr. Peter Hardy: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) over the way in which he disposed of the charge that the Opposition were not 100 per cent. opposed to this deplorable Bill. The Secretary of State tried to launch that idea at the beginning of the debate when he offered the House his contribution, which was a mixture of urbanity and arrogance. He seemed, in his birthday euphoria, to be enjoying not having the discomfiture of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the problems that that right hon. Gentleman faces.
The Secretary of State suggested that the Bill had been thoroughly prepared and carefully worked out. He proved that this was the case by his claim that there were so few amendments. He may find that some of the amendments that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I tabled might have improved the Bill. Had the hon. Member for Erewash (Mr. Rost) been a member of the Standing Committee, he might well have supported some of the Opposition amendments. I believe that in some mild way his was the only sane and sensible contribution that we have heard from the Government Benches today.
As I have said, there was only a very minor word of sanity from the Tory Benches in the contribution from the hon. Member for Erewash. Quite frankly, some of the speeches from Tory Members this evening have been deplorable. They have clearly overlooked a number of points that Opposition Members made in Committee. Tory Members seemed to imagine that the Opposition will be somewhere in the queue behind them when privatisation takes place.
We know why Tory Members are here today and interested in the Bill. I am only sorry that the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) received a shock to his system when he discovered on joining the Standing Committee that the Committee was not going to last for only a minute or so.
In the short time that I have available, my task is to summarise the main objections to the Bill and the principal points that my hon. Friends have made. Basically, the Opposition regard the Bill, whatever view one may take of the quality of our opposition to it, as a dogmatic assertion of irresponsibility and a profligate approach to a great public asset.
The Secretary of State suggested that, because people were not joining in fervent opposition to the Bill and because people had not become passionately attached to the idea of community involvement, somehow the Morrisonian concept had failed. However, if one looks at the way in which British Gas has become perhaps the greatest single industry or commercial organisation in Britain and one of the most successful in Europe if not in the world, it is evident that with good management and proper industrial relations public ownership can make an enormous contribution to the national good. The Opposition have real reservations as to whether the privatised British Gas will make the same contribution to the British economy or to our record of commercial success—a success that is rapidly eluding the Government.
My hon. Friends have offered detailed criticism of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) showed how the profit motive, without adequate control, can lead to appalling risk. In the debate we have stressed on several occasions that we are anxious about safety. We have not, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) said, tried to start scare stories about safety. However, we are entitled to express reservations about the safety factor.
I know that from time to time the Secretary of State became somewhat restive when we stressed our concern about safety, but that concern remains. My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) pursued that matter in Standing Committee and stressed that if the Health and Safety Executive is to fulfil its responsibilities with regard to gas safety, it will have to receive a greater commitment and larger resources. We were not reassured when the Minister of State said that there had been a substantial upsurge and growth in the Health and Safety Executive, as it transphed that that "upsurge" was from 1,266 people to 1,242. That arithmetical presentation did not give us much confidence about the Government's commitment to safety.
We remain concerned about inadequate provision for the consumer. One representative per region is not enough. I hope that our anxieties about this aspect will be firmly expressed in the other place. I imagine that some Members of the other place who are worried about the regions will not give great joy to the Government.
The hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) offered us a reassurance about the formula. We were not reassured when the Government produced that appalling, complicated numerical gobbledegook. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) had to explain it to the Committee. He is a historian. The hon. Member for Rochford had to wait until Third Reading to tell us that it was all clear and concise. How many gas consumers are seriously impressed by the formula that the hon. Member for Rochford now finds so attractive?
The regulator does not have sufficient powers, esteem or standing. I believe that, during this debate, some

Conservative Members began to move towards that view. There is certainly cause for concern that the director general may not have adequate powers either to interfere in prices or to ensure that there are sensible policies to guarantee supply.
We must be suspicious of the Government's attitude to supply. The Secretary of State was the Treasury's willing tool in blocking Sleipner's contract, but he now suggests that British Gas can return to that field for supply. I wonder whether, despite the fall in oil prices, gas consumers will pay heavily for that political interference. The Secretary of State offered British Gas the attractive prospect of freedom from political interference but British Gas probably well remembers that political interference by a Conservative Government has greatly damaged the industry and been of great disadvantage to the consumer.
We do not believe that the British consumer will benefit from this privatisation. I have asked the Minister of State to tell us whether people from overseas have already been employed to assist in the disposal of British Gas under part II. The House should be aware, although the press has appeared to ignore this fact, that Goldman Sachs of New York, Wood Gundy, Nomura of Tokyo and the Swiss Bank Corporation International of Zurich are all involved in assisting the Government to develop this vista of wider and democratic share ownership in Britain. We do not need the Swiss Bank Corporation International to assist in getting shares for the workers.
Presumably workers with shares will not be allowed to be influential. The quorum at the annual meeting will be two shareholders, which gives meaning to the Conservative party's attachment to democratic and wider share ownership! Those two shareholders will presumably be Sir Denis Rooke and some other friend who has a fair number of votes. The quorum will probably not include the workers. Perhaps the hon. Member for Rochford or, perhaps even more likely, the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo) will be involved.

Dr. Michael Clark: Why me?

Mr. Hardy: The hon. Gentleman was particularly keen to see a structure which would allow the piracy in terms of economic theory to which he has long been attached. That is why I offered that prospect.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pcntefact and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) reminded the House that the Government believed that they had served Britain's interests well by suggesting that no single foreign holding would be allowed to have more than 15 per cent. of the shares. The Government expected us to fall down in gratitude and satisfaction when that national protection was offered. We cannot guess what 15 per cent. will be because we do not know for how much British Gas will be sold. I hope that the other place will insist on the Department of Energy providing information on the character of the privatisation which will follow.
The Secretary of State said that the Committee considered the matter in detail. However, some key aspects of the flotation were not considered. The Government would not tell us how much British Gas was worth. It is all right for the Secretary of State to say that some Labour Members suggested that the asset value should be a guide to the sale price—the Government may not expect to receive £18 billion from the sale, which is the net asset value at present—but the right hon.


Gentleman cannot then protest if, on selling British Gas for £6 billion or £7 billion, we complain that the national interest has been badly served and that a public asset has been disposed of in a profligate manner.
We are not relieved when, having expressed concern about the people who might own British Gas, we are told that Companies Act protection will apply, which means that anyone who owns more than 5 per cent. of the shares will have to be known to British Gas. That means that Conservative Members or, more likely, some of their more disreputable friends will have to declare a holding when it gets to a £300 million or £400 million level. We gain no great comfort from the thought that people like Conservative Members—or like President Marcos of the Philippines, Baby Doc of Haiti or any other of the assorted people who are viewed more favourably by Conservative Members than they are by us—could be secret holders of British Gas shares. What a picture of a measure which is supposed to assist the United Kingdom but which is a contemptible attempt by the Government to ensure that they get enough money to bribe the electorate at the next general election. That fact was not mentioned by the Secretary of State, but it was mentioned several times by my colleagues. It will he mentioned many more times between now and the next general election.

The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): We have had a good debate in the final stages of the Gas Bill. Although there are obviously deep differences and divisions between the two sides of the House on what is best for the future of British Gas, all the speeches have been marked by an appreciation of the achievements of the gas industry.
Gas is a great, important and well-managed industry, which is a tribute to those who have taken part in it and built it up over many years. Both sides of the House are united in their desire for the gas industry to continue to be a great industry and to serve Britain. Obviously, it is disappointing that we differ about the need for change. That background has resulted in a marked constructiveness and public-spiritedness in our debates. I should like to thank those hon. Members who have contributed to our debates.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I appreciated the contributions made by the Select Committee on Energy.

Mr. Lofthouse: They have not shown it.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I believe that we have shown it. The Select Committee's work, the evidence that it took and the report that it submitted to the House are all signs of that. The Government, including my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I, have made a direct response to the Select Committee's recommendations. For example, we have responded with respect to competition, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo) referred. I am afraid that I always think of the way in which the right hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Cocks) used to refer to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate. I am glad that I did not fall into the mixture of words used by the right hon. Gentleman. The competition measures in the Bill have been improved.
With regard to energy efficiency, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) tried to poke a

certain amount of fun. My hon. Friends the Members for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) and for Erewash (Mr. Rost) were right to stress the importance of energy efficiency and conservation, and on Report we had a good debate on it. Clause 4 incorporates an obligation on the Secretary of State and on the director general to ensure efficient and economic gas supplies and use. That responsibility cannot lightly be discarded. It has been in the Bill from the beginning and, although it may not be as specific as my hon. Friends might have liked, we are committed to it, and the director will be committed to it when the Bill is enacted.
If I may deal with the question of transparency in the accounts—the second debate on Report in regard to the Select Committee report—I remind the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford that my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Lloyd) withdrew his amendment because I was able to give the reassurance that this was a matter to which the Government had paid attention. Although it was not in the Bill in the way that my hon. Friend might ideally have desired, the point was covered in the authorisation that comes under the Bill.

Mr. Lofthouse: Does the Minister agree that his hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Lloyd), before he withdrew his amendment, made it clear that he thought that some parts of the Select Committee report were falling on deaf ears?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: They certainly did not fall on deaf ears. I have given a number of examples of where direct action has been taken. I pay tribute to the work of the Select Committee.
Many speakers today have concentrated on the two important areas of competition and regulation. I make no apology for the fact that one of the major purposes of the Bill, in areas where British Gas obviously has a monopoly, has been to write in strong, clear and firm regulations. We have seen no need—indeed, we think it is undesirable—to extend the area of regulation beyond that which is absolutely necessary.
With regard to the contract market—something that the Opposition have never come to accept—increasingly, as the debate has gone on outside the House, those who have asked for more regulation have clearly demonstrated, if demonstration were ever needed, that there is competition in the industrial market, and that we were right to limit regulation to those areas where it was needed. In that regard, we have made sure that it will be strong.
By writing into the Bill an obligation on the director general to promote competition, we have given him a role in that respect as in other areas relating to pipelines and the common carrier. The director general will also have control over the tariff and its greater transparency.
Perhaps most notable—this we introduced on Report—are the new provisions relating to the obligation on British Gas to provide back-up supplies. This, I believe, makes the common carrier provisions more important and gives them more force than ever before. In a number of important areas where competition needs enforcement, we have made certain that these form a major part of the Bill, together with the authorisation under which the director general will have certain responsibilities.
As to regulation, the director general has real powers of enforcement in respect of some of the matters that I have


mentioned. If the public gas supplier does not comply with its obligations, the director general has power to enforce it to do so. He also has the power to modify the authorisation to ensure that the powers and authorisation provided in the Bill are effective.
I believe that the Government have been responsive at all stages of the Bill to the importance that the House attaches to the need to protect and promote the interests of the consumer. We made a major amendment to the Bill on Report to ensure that it is explicit about what the Gas Consumers Council is able to do. We have made sure that in all areas—in the matter of contracts, appliances and goods imported from abroad—the council will be able to act, and any consumer who feels aggrieved in any way will be able to take his complaints to the council.
Contrary to what the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) said, there will be regional representation on the Gas Consumers Council. We are giving the council the freedom to set up the kind of structure and organisation that, in the light of its experience under other legislation, it judges best able to represent the needs of consumers throughout the country. I certainly trust the new Gas Consumers Council to carry on the work of the old Gas Users Council. I believe it is right to give the new council a degree of freedom to run its own affairs and to operate in the interests of consumers. I am confident that it will be as effective as the old council.
On the question of safety, once again we have witnessed a certain amount of scare-mongering to the effect that, in privatising British Gas, we are in some way weakening safety provisions. That is not true. We have taken the opportunity in the Bill and in other related measures to strengthen the safety provisions so that the new gas industry under private ownership will have greater obligations than hitherto.
We are continuing the 24-hour emergency service, and British Gas will continue to carry out free safety checks for the elderly and disabled. There will be a stronger Health and Safety Executive regulation which in future will be backed by the power of custodial sentences rather than just fines. We are increasing the number of Health and Safety Executive inspectors, contrary to the impression that the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) has constantly tried to give to the House. More inspectors are being recruited. The Health and Safety Executive is devoting 60 per cent. more of its time to gas safety measures than hitherto. It is sheer scaremongering to say what the hon. Member for Cynon Valley and other Opposition Members have been saying. There will be new codes of practice for gas installers. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will introduce new regulations on safety standards for appliances, including imported appliances.
The Bill is good for the industry, for consumers and for the nation. As a result of the Bill we shall see a continuation of the Government's policy of returning the assets of the nation to the people. The number of shareholders in this country has doubled since 1979 because of the policies of the Government. The Bill takes wider share ownership another great step forward. I ask the House to support the Third Reading of the Bill.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 287, Noes 201.

Division No.115]
[7.00 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Alexander, Richard
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Amess, David
Fallon, Michael


Ancram, Michael
Farr, Sir John


Arnold, Tom
Favell, Anthony


Ashby, David
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Aspinwall, Jack
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Fletcher, Alexander


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Fookes, Miss Janet


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Forman, Nigel


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Baldry, Tony
Fox, Marcus


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Franks, Cecil


Batiste, Spencer
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Freeman, Roger


Bellingnam, Henry
Fry, Peter


Bennett, Rt Hon Sir Frederic
Gale, Roger


Benyon, William
Galley, Roy


Best, Keith
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Bevan, David Gilroy
Glyn, Dr Alan


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Goodlad, Alastair


Blackburn, John
Gorst, John


Body, Sir Richard
Gow, Ian


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gower, Sir Raymond


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Grant, Sir Anthony


Bottomley, Peter
Greenway, Harry


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Gregory, Conal


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Griffiths, Sir Eldon


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Grist, Ian


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Ground, Patrick


Bright, Graham
Grylls, Michael


Brinton, Tim
Hampson, Dr Keith


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Hanley, Jeremy


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Harvey, Robert


Browne, John
Haselhurst, Alan


Bruinvels, Peter
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)


Buck, Sir Antony
Hawksley, Warren


Budgen, Nick
Hayes, J.


Burt, Alistair
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney


Butcher, John
Hayward, Robert


Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Butterfill, John
Heddle, John


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hickmet, Richard


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Carttiss, Michael
Hill, James


Cash, William
Hind, Kenneth


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hirst, Michael


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Chapman, Sydney
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Chope, Christopher
Holt, Richard


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Hordern, Sir Peter


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Howard, Michael


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Cockeram, Eric
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Colvin, Michael
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)


Conway, Derek
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)


Coombs, Simon
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Cope, John
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Corrie, John
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Couchman, James
Hunter, Andrew


Cranborne, Viscount
Jackson, Robert


Critchley, Julian
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Crouch, David
Jessel, Toby


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dorrell, Stephen
Jones, Robert (Herts W)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Dover, Den
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Dunn, Robert
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Durant, Tony
Key, Robert


Dykes, Hugh
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Eggar, Tim
Knowles, Michael


Emery, Sir Peter
Knox, David


Evennett, David
Lamont, Norman






Lang, Ian
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Latham, Michael
Rathbone, Tim


Lawler, Geoffrey
Renton, Tim


Lawrence, Ivan
Rhodes James, Robert


Lee, John (Pendle)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lester, Jim
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Lightbown, David
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Rost, Peter


Lord, Michael
Rowe, Andrew


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Lyell, Nicholas
Ryder, Richard


McCrindle, Robert
Sackville, Hon Thomas


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Macfarlane, Neil
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Sayeed, Jonathan


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Silvester, Fred


McQuarrie, Albert
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Major, John
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Malins, Humfrey
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Maples, John
Speller, Tony


Marland, Paul
Spencer, Derek


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mates, Michael
Steen, Anthony


Mather, Carol
Stern, Michael


Maude, Hon Francis
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Stokes, John


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Sumberg, David


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Miscampbell, Norman
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Moate, Roger
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Monro, Sir Hector
Thornton, Malcolm


Moore, Rt Hon John
Thurnham, Peter


Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Tracey, Richard


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Trippier, David


Moynihan, Hon C.
Twinn, Dr Ian


Mudd, David
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Neale, Gerrard
Viggers, Peter


Nelson, Anthony
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Neubert, Michael
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Newton, Tony
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Nicholls, Patrick
Waller, Gary


Normanton, Tom
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Norris, Steven
Warren, Kenneth


Onslow, Cranley
Watson, John


Oppenheim, Phillip
Watts, John


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Osborn, Sir John
Wheeler, John


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Wiggin, Jerry


Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abgdn)
Winterton, Nicholas


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wolfson, Mark


Porter, Barry
Wood, Timothy


Portillo, Michael
Yeo, Tim


Powell, William (Corby)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Powley, John



Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Tellers for the Ayes:


Price, Sir David
Mr. Archie Hamilton and


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Mr. Gerald Malone.


Raffan, Keith





NOES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Beckett, Mrs Margaret


Alton, David
Beith, A. J.


Anderson, Donald
Bell, Stuart


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Benn, Rt Hon Tony


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)


Ashton, Joe
Bermingham, Gerald


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Bidwell, Sydney


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Blair, Anthony


Barnett, Guy
Boyes, Roland


Barron, Kevin
Bray, Dr Jeremy





Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Janner, Hon Greville


Bruce, Malcolm
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)


Buchan, Norman
John, Brynmor


Caborn, Richard
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Kennedy, Charles


Campbell, Ian
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Canavan, Dennis
Kirkwood, Archy


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Lambie, David


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Lamond, James


Cartwright, John
Leadbitter, Ted


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Leighton, Ronald


Clarke, Thomas
Litherland, Robert


Clay, Robert
Livsey, Richard


Clelland, David Gordon
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
Loyden, Edward


Cohen, Harry
McCartney, Hugh


Conlan, Bernard
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Corbett, Robin
McKelvey, William


Corbyn, Jeremy
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Craigen, J. M.
Maclennan, Robert


Crowther, Stan
McNamara, Kevin


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McTaggart, Robert


Cunningham, Dr John
Madden, Max


Dalyell, Tam
Marek, Dr John


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Martin, Michael


Deakins, Eric
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Dewar, Donald
Maxton, John


Dixon, Donald
Maynard, Miss Joan


Dormand, Jack
Meacher, Michael


Douglas, Dick
Michie, William


Dubs, Alfred
Mikardo, Ian


Duffy, A. E. P.
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Eadie, Alex
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Eastham, Ken
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Ellis, Raymond
Nellist, David


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Ewing, Harry
O'Brien, William


Faulds, Andrew
O'Neill, Martin


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Park, George


Fisher, Mark
Parry, Robert


Flannery, Martin
Patchett, Terry


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Pavitt, Laurie


Forrester, John
Penhaligon, David


Foster, Derek
Pike, Peter


Foulkes, George
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Prescott, John


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Radice, Giles


Freud, Clement
Redmond, Martin


Garrett, W. E.
Richardson, Ms Jo


Godman, Dr Norman
Robertson, George


Golding, John
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Gould, Bryan
Rogers, Allan


Gourlay, Harry
Rooker, J. W.


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)
Ross, Stephen (lsle of Wight)


Hancock, Michael
Rowlands, Ted


Hardy, Peter
Sedgemore, Brian


Harman, Ms Harriet
Sheerman, Barry


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Haynes, Frank
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Heffer, Eric S.
Skinner, Dennis


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)


Home Robertson, John
Snape, Peter


Howells, Geraint
Soley, Clive


Hoyle, Douglas
Spearing, Nigel


Hughes, Dr Mark (Durham)
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)






Stott, Roger
Welsh, Michael


Strang, Gavin
White, James


Straw, Jack
Wigley, Dafydd


Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)
Wilson, Gordon


Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)
Winnick, David


Thorne, Stan (Preston)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Tinn, James
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Torney, Tom



Wainwright, R.
Tellers for the Noes:


Wallace, James
Mr. John McWilliam and


Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Mr. Ron Davies.


Weetch, Ken

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — Adjournment (Easter and May Day)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House, at its rising on Thursday 27th March, do adjourn until Tuesday 8th April and, at its rising on Friday 2nd May, do adjourn until Tuesday 6th May; and the House shall not adjourn on Thursday 27th March until Mr. Speaker shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Acts which have been agreed upon by both Houses.—[Mr. Durant.]

Mr. John Silkin: I do not wish the Adjournment motion to pass without a protest from the Opposition Benches on behalf of those whose views ought to be heeded by the Government but whom the Government choose to ignore. I am talking about those who are not able to make the tax-free gains from shares that the Chancellor envisages, because neither the Budget nor their employers provide them with enough money to be able to purchase shares in the first place.
There are two early-day motions on the Order Paper, Nos. 204 and 217, about speech therapists, and they are signed by hon. Members from both major political parties. I should like to speak about speech therapists and to quote from a letter from a constituent of mine who is a speech therapist. She says:
I am the only speech therapist at the hospital and have sole responsibility for the assessment, diagnosis, treatment and discharge of all cases requiring speech therapy.
The caseload comprises mainly stroke patients and head injuries, but also voice cases, including laryngectomies, and patients suffering from progressing disorders.
The hospital houses a stroke unit where patients are offered intensive treatment.
I am responsible for training and liaison with all other relevant staff, including lecturing to doctors, nurses and physiotherapists.
I am required to advise, inform and assist relatives and patients in dealing with the emotional trauma which inevitably accompanies stroke or head injury.
Other responsibilities include clinical training of final year speech therapy students (for which I receive extra payment) and organising and running a stroke club (a voluntary evening activity without payment or time in lieu).
I have worked for 12 years in the NHS following a three-year training course and also hold a first-class honours degree in psychology, and this year will be earning £9,175.
Until recently, speech therapy was an all-female profession, and is still more than 99 per cent. female.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: That is why they receive such low pay.

Mr. Silkin: As my hon. Friend rightly says, that is why they receive such low pay. However, it is not only the 99-plus per cent. women who are badly paid. Men are only marginally better paid.
Another constituent of mine is a speech therapist, and after five years of study and four years work in the service he earns £10,033 a year. He is marginally better off than my woman constituent, but for a responsible job like that such low pay is a scandal and a disgrace. It is made worse by the fact that speech therapists are now required to undergo a four-year degree course before they can practise. That helps them and it helps the patients, but it does not help the salaries. It is not that the Government have wrong priorities: they have no priorities at all.
If we examine the record of the National Health Service, we see that in a week's time there will be a rise in prescription charges. When Labour left office in 1979 the prescription charge was 20p, and it will go up to £2·20 next week. That is 1,100 per cent. inflation in the cost of treatment under this Government. In addition, the


Government have deliberately forced the authorities to give contracts for cleaning and laundry to private individuals at bargain basement rates. They are proposing to sell nurses' homes.
When only those who administer direct help and those who suffer are penalised, it is time to wonder what is happening to the National Health Service. When the NHS has increased its bureaucracy by about 68,000 to a record of nearly 800,000 people—68,000 more than in 1979—we are entitled to wonder what priorities, if any, the Government have. When the payment of speech therapists is an affront, not just to their professional qualifications, but to the hopes and aspirations of their patients, we should query that.
I talked about the profession being badly paid, and my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) rightly said that that was because speech therapy was entirely a female profession. There had been a promise to discuss equal pay. The management side on the Whitley council agreed to do so a few months ago, but I am told that only yesterday the management side of the Whitley council, I suspect encouraged by the Government, said that it would not discuss that matter.
One understands that there are precedents to be created. There is an overall issue, that perhaps the Government do not wish to see go beyond speech therapists into the NHS and Government service generally, but in this case, if in no other—it should be in all other cases as well—there is more than a reason why, if we are to keep our speech therapists and see that the patients benefit, that question should be dealt with immediately.
I do not want to detain the House any longer than is necessary, but if we do not deal with the matter now it will not be raised in the usual conflict between the parties—the right and proper conflict that there should be. The matter will simply be ignored and forgotten, as always happens when a small group of people, however intelligent and articulate, are far fewer in number that the general mass about whom we talk.
I hope that the Leader of the House will, as he has always done in the past when I have raised questions with him, make the necessary inquiries of the Department, and perhaps even write to me in due course, to see whether we can do something to assist those who, according to the two early-day motions about which I spoke, 160 right hon. and hon. Members feel should get a far better deal than they are getting at the moment.

Sir Anthony Grant: I have some sympathy with the point raised by the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Mr. Silkin). I have been approached by speech therapists in my constituency, and I know what a marvellous job they do because I have seen examples of their work.
I want to refer to another medical matter today. I do not want the House to adjourn without my having the opportunity to draw the attention of the House and Ministers in the Department of Health and Social Security to the growing public disquiet over the powers of the General Medical Council to discipline doctors. That disquiet has been heightened by the tragic case of Harriet English from my constituency.
We are all too familiar with the widely reported and lasciviously read cases of doctors' sexual activities with patients, but rather more rarely do we read of cases of

doctors' incompetence, although such cases are often of far greater importance and have far more dangerous consequences than the lurid cases that attract the popular press.
The powers of the GMC derive from the Medical Act 1983. Under section 36 no sanctions or remedies are available unless the conduct of the practitioner concerned is judged to be "serious professional misconduct".
At this stage I want to refer to the tragic case of Harriet English, the daughter of my agent in Cambridgeshire, South-West. I raised the matter in the House last July. Briefly, Harriet, aged 22, a perfectly fit and athletic girl, felt tired after playing badminton and taking other exercise and she later complained of a pain in the shoulder. General practitioner Dr. Barretto was consulted. He diagnosed a torn ligament and administered an injection of cortisone. He did not inquire whether Harriet was right or left-handed, which was relevant, he did not take her temperature, and he did not take her blood pressure. Later, in his absence, Harriet was similarly treated by his partners, Dr. Ryan and Dr. Page. She became extremely ill during the subsequent four days and was rushed to the London clinic, where, in agonising circumstances, she died of septicemia which had at no time previously been diagnosed.
I shall not weary the House with the details of the inquest and the complex subsequent investigations by medical experts. Suffice it to say that ultimately a case alleging serious professional misconduct was brought against Dr. Barretto and Dr. Ryan and it was heard by the GMC disciplinary committee on 18 March 1986. Learned counsel were involved and experts were called on both sides. Not surprisingly, they expressed differing views. But one expert, Dr. Martin Wood, attested that Harriet's symptoms should have alerted Dr. Barretto to the fact that she was suffering from something more than a torn ligament.
However, the GMC's decision—from which I understand there is no appeal, except on a point of law to the Privy Council—was that serious professional misconduct was not proved and the doctors were cleared. Nevertheless, the case left unanswered questions of competence and acceptability of conduct. No alternative charge is available to the GMC under the Medical Act. Where medical conduct is "unacceptable"—to use a phrase of the GMC in its handbook—no remedy or penalty is provided.
The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), whom I am pleased to see in his place, is a leading campaigner on the issue and has a private Member's Bill which seeks to amend section 36 of the Medical Act 1983 so as to provide that unacceptable professional conduct can be brought in as an alternative. He can cite a number of cases to support the argument, as can other hon. Members, in particular the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Abse). The GMC maintains that the additional powers proposed in the Bill would not be helpful.
I must quote from a letter that the hon. Member for Newham, South has given to me, which he received from the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security on 12 March 1986. It says:
The Council"—
the General Medical Council—
maintains that the additional power that you propose"—
in the hon. Gentleman's Bill—
would not be helpful because it might lead to a tendency to substitute the lesser for the more serious finding which in the longer term would be likely to weaken rather than strengthen the public's confidence in the Council's disciplinary powers.
That is an extremely curious argument. It is rather like saying that the only motoring offence should be dangerous driving, without the alternative offence of driving without due care and attention; or, indeed, that the only charge for causing death should be murder, with no charge of manslaughter or unlawful homicide.
All this basically stems from the Merrison report in 1975, Cmnd. 6018, from which the constitutional powers of the GMC derive. Paragraph 10 states:
It is important to understand in this context that the GMC is merely the instrument for the proper supervision of this contract"—
that is, between the public and the profession—
and that it derives its authority, and indeed its being, from legislation.
The report goes on:
The legislature"—
that is, Parliament—
acts in this context for the public, and it is for Parliament to decide the nature of the contract and the way it is be executed.
Therefore, this matter to which I draw attention is essentially for Parliament.
Of course, we all know that the overwhelming majority of doctors do their duty supremely well. Only a tiny minority are guilty of serious professional misconduct. A slightly larger minority, but still a minority, indulge in professional conduct that is "unacceptable", in GMC terms. Nevertheless, I believe that there is growing public anxiety, which my case illustrates, which would be relieved by the reform that I have described and that is contained in the private Member's Bill to which I have referred.
As I said in the House last year, my constituents Richard and Ann English know that nothing can bring back their beloved daughter, but they hope, as I do, that others may be spared Harriet's tragic fate. I ask the Ministers concerned to give this whole matter their most careful and sympathetic consideration.

Mr. David Alton: I am sure that all hon. Members wish the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) good fortune in pursuing the case of Harriet English, which is clearly worthy of the attention of those on the Treasury Bench and all hon. Members of the House. I hope, too, that when the chance comes to debate the private Member's Bill it will be given widespread support.
Tonight I should like to widen the debate to the question of Nepalese Christians, which is perhaps especially topical in view of the recent visits to Nepal by Her Majesty the Queen and our Foreign Secretary.
Just after Christmas, an Anglo-American human rights team which included myself and the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) travelled to Nepal to examine allegations of torture and brutality against the small Christian minority there. Our objectives included the following: first, nationwide tolerance for Christians accused of violating the constitution as it relates to their religion at every level of the judicial system; secondly, an end to the arbitrary harassment of accused Christians during the judicial process; thirdly, recognition of the right

to reasonable and judicious bail; fourthly, equal protection under the law for the Christian population; fifthly, an end to the confiscation of bibles; and, sixthly, movement towards changing Nepalese law to conform to the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, to which Nepal subscribes.
During our delegation's visit to Nepal we travelled over 1,000 miles in six days and took evidence from many people. In remote villages and towns and in the capital, Kathmandu, we met hundreds of people and, in subsequent interviews with the Law and Justice Secretary and the Foreign Minister, Mr. Ranodhir Subbha, we instanced many examples of human rights violations. The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and I subsequently presented the Nepalese Government and the Nepalese ambassador here in London with transcripts corroborating our findings.
Before her Majesty the Queen and the Foreign Secretary went to Nepal, we met the latter and outlined our concerns. I regret that the Under-Secretary, in his reply on 31 January to a question that I tabled, said that he had virtually no power to intervene and thought it really not appropriate for the British Government to monitor the situation in Nepal. He said:
Allegations about the treatment of Nepalese citizens in Nepal are an internal matter for the Government of that country. We have no locus standi to intervene."—[Official Report, 31 January 1986; Vol. 90, c. 646.]:
He went on to say that Her Majesty's embassy at Kathmandu was in regular contact with Christian leaders and missionary societies in Nepal.
Certainly, when I met Ambassador Hurrell in Nepal he was in contact with Christian leaders, particularly the Rev. Charles Mendies, and he had heard from them first hand of some of the allegations which we have instanced both to the Nepalese authorities and to the Foreign Office.
While I was disappointed at that reply, I was pleased that, following the interview with the Foreign Secretary, he took the opportunity when in Nepal to raise these important matters with his opposite number, and in a letter which was sent subsequently he said:
During the visit I took the opportunity to raise informally with the Nepalese Foreign Minister the alleged persecution of Christians in Nepal. Mr. Subbha said that he understood our concern. He was very concerned about the allegations of torture, and told me that these were being investigated. I was also able to speak to a number of missionaries working in Nepal and to tell them of our interest in their situation.
I can assure you that the treatment of Christians in Nepal is a matter which we shall continue to monitor closely.
While I am grateful for that change of attitude on the part of the Foreign Office, I still believe that there is a deal of misapprehension both by Members of the House and by people from the journalists' corps, who constantly present Nepal as some sort of romantic Arcadia, infinitely tolerant in its treatment of minorities. This simply does not square with reality.
If, without going into great detail on the report, I give two quotations to the Leader of the House, he will get the general thrust of the statements which were made to us when we visited Nepal. The first says:
they beat our brother and he was hung up and beat and kept at night in stocks. And then he became very sick and after he was released a few days later he passed away. And still in that particular village there is intensified persecution of the Christians.
The second quotation says:
the four of us who were in a separate group were kept in a separate jail, and all night we were beaten by the police. Our feet


were kept in stocks and we were beaten on the soles of our feet … And even after three months when we were released we were not able to walk properly.
In a letter to The Times, the Nepalese ambassador to the Court of St. James, Mr. Ishwari Pandey, stated:
an individual can freely practise his faith
and may "change his faith". Regrettably, that is not true. By law, citizens may not evangelise, nor may they convert to Christianity. If this law is transgressed, they face up to six years in jail. In 1985 alone, over 80 people were charged with "preaching Christianity" and causing a "disturbance to Hinduism."
Mr. Pandey has also strongly asserted on more than one occasion that
not a single drop of blood has ever been shed in the name of religion".
During the time that we were taking evidence, especially in the east Nepalese town of Dahran, witness after witness described beatings and acts of brutality meted out by local officials—incidents which are hardly consistent with the ambassador's claim.
Mr. Subbha, the Nepalese Foreign Minister and a most gracious man, is a strong advocate of King Birendra's foreign affairs initiative to create a zone of peace in the region. He is also totally committed to his country's participation in international organisations such as the United Nations. But a failure by his Government to curb the excesses of fanatical local zealots can only undermine Nepal's reputation and bring his laudable attempts to create a zone of peace into ridicule. Nor will the West be able to take seriously a country whose code of law directly contradicts article 18 of the United Nations convention on human rights:
Everyone should have the right to freedom to have or adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.
Not only are Nepal's 35,000 Christians denied this right, but they are subject to arbitrary harassment, humiliation and persecution. Once they are charged, cases are postponed, and bail is set at ludicrously high levels. Sometimes bail is used punitively, and we found examples of the bail of Christians being confiscated even on acquittal.
There is also clearly one law for foreigners and another for the indigenous Nepalese. Last March 14 members of a group called YWAM—Youth With a Mission—were arrested in a town called Dahding for staging a puppet show illustrating gospel stories. The 14 were held for seven days in a cell measuring 9 ft by 12 ft. The conditions were indescribably bad. The charges against the foreign contingent were dropped, but the five young Nepalese in the group face up to six years in prison.
Other Christians told us of obstacles placed in their path. The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and I saw a Bible school which had been closed. We heard how Mother Teresa's nuns have a centre for the destitute and dying in the shadow of Kathmandu's Pashupatinath Hindu temple, but the authorities have refused them permission to open a leprosarium.
The Jesuits operated a rehabilitation centre for drug addicts under the supervision of Father Tom Gafrey. Heroin addiction, one of the more malign western influences, has reached epidemic proportions there. Yet Mr.Tek Bahadur Thapa, of the Nepalese narcotic drug

control office, refused to extend visas for the Christians who manned the centre. So Nepal's only drug rehabilitation centre was forced to close last August.
Nepal is understandably worried about western influences, and some humility is required of the heirs of "rice Christianity". But past excesses do not excuse present intolerance. Nor do they exonerate gross distortions by the Nepalese Government-controlled press. The comments of the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East were grossly distorted and deftly turned around to give entirely the opposite meaning. Our findings were completely suppressed and the only story that appeared carried the headline:
Christian delegation satisfied with community's lot.
Nothing could have been further from the truth.
Since our visit, matters have not improved. Two more people have been arrested to join the over 80 others who were arrested last year. Secondly, evidence has been given to us about discrimination against Christians in the Gurkha regiments. This has been provided by Mr.Byatt, former civilian lecturer in English in the Brigade of Gurkhas training depot.
Mr. Byatt worked from January 1980 to the end of February 1984 in the training depot. He noted that the Christians in the depot were not given the opportunity to worship. He also discovered actual discrimination against those who wanted to change their documents to declare the fact that they had become Christians. In the brigade, recruits have their forms automatically stamped "Hindu" to ease the flow of registration.
New recruits are not permitted to leave the depot during the first nine months of their training. In consequence, Christians are not permitted to attend the church services. The Anglican church of St.Martin's is in the next-door depot, but it remains out of bounds to recruits. The anomaly arises because recruits are obliged to attend Hindu temple service. Recruits may also go swimming, under supervision, in the next-door camp, in the pool that is next to the church.
The recruits are billeted in a camp called Malaga Lines, and this is separated from the other depot, called Borneo Lines, by an air strip. One Christian Gurkha wanted to attend church, but was not permitted to do so under camp regulations although he desperately wanted to go. He told his mother that the hardest part of serving in the Gurkhas was not being allowed to go to church.
The second major act of discrimination is more serious. In 1972, one Gurkha soldier wanted to change his documents to register the fact that he had become a Christian. He was unsuccessful, and had to recant in the face of dismissal. That is unacceptable.
Nepal is a beautiful country and the Nepalese have much to be proud of, but it still has grievous economic and social problems. Some 77 per cent. are illiterate, life expectancy is only 45 years and there is an infant mortality rate of 150 deaths out of every 1,000 live births. There is an annual average per capita income of only £100 a year, with an inflation rate of 14 per cent. and a recent devaluation of 20 per cent. Britain should boost its meagre £10 million aid programme to help to combat the unrelieved endemic poverty.
There are many other ways in which our two countries could help each other, and much that we could teach each other. Inevitably, a prerequisite of closer relations is mutual tolerance of each other's minorities. Her Majesty's Government should not turn a blind eye to the plight of


Nepalese Christians. I hope that, when the Leader of the House replies, he will be able to give an assurance that continual monitoring of the condition of Christians in Nepal will be undertaken by Her Majesty's representatives there.

Mr. Michael Latham: The House listened with concern to the speech made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton). I know nothing of the details of what he describes, but Nepal is a country with which we have always had close relations, and in particular the Gurhkas stand high in the admiration of the British people. I am sure that what the hon. Gentleman has said will be considered closely by Ministers.
I shall raise three important matters, of which the first is agriculture. It is important that we should have a clear statement from the Government—whether it comes before the House rises for the Easter recess or shortly afterwards—of their overall strategy for agriculture. I can remember sitting where the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr.Brown)is sitting under the five years of Labour Government, and listening to Lord Peart, as he now is, and the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Mr.Silkin) producing White Papers for the expansion of agriculture. I can remember my right hon. Friend the member for Worcester (Mr.Walker)doing the same thing for a Conservative Government.
Clearly the rules and realities have changed. We all accept that surpluses must be controlled. The problem must be tackled, but it is essential that we do something to restore the morale of agriculture, because it does not know where it is supposed to be going, nor what it is supposed to do instead of growing unwanted surpluses. I strongly emphasise to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that I should like him to ask my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to prepare a White Paper setting out a strategy for agriculture in the new reality of a time of surplus, in which production must be restrained. Whether we address problems such as "set-aside", or other techniques of dealing with such problems, we must set a new strategy.
The second matter is a constituency issue, but one of considerable importance to my constituents concerning the Ministry of Defence. At the moment, the Ministry has a mania of trying to merge service institutions. As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I am partly responsible for the recent report which showed the ridiculous nonsense over the proposed joint music school. I hope that Ministers will take that report seriously.
A similar move is being contemplated in my constituency. There is an inquiry into a proposal to close RAF North Luffenham. This would mean the movement of up to 930 RAF personnel, the loss of 150 civilian jobs and the loss of £250,000 worth of rate income to the local authority. Such a move would be extremely unwelcome in my constituency. I have made it clear to Lord Trefgarne that if he proceeds with these proposals he can expect my strongest possible opposition, and I am bringing a delegation from the local council to see him next month.
Lord Trefgame is also proposing to close the dog school at the Royal Army Veterinary Corps at Melton Mowbray, and move that to RAF Newton in Nottinghamshire. Both

of these schemes are extremely poorly thought out. The costings have been far from adequately done, and I make it clear to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and Lord Trefgame that the latter can expect much trouble from me if these suggestions are carried out. I sincerely hope that they will not be. My right hon. Friend knows me well enough to know that that is not necessarily an idle threat.
The third matter is one on which I have recently made myself a pain in the neck to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House—the Shops Bill. My right hon. Friend would be doing the House and the Conservative party a service if he said in advance what concessions the Government are willing to make on the Bill. It would be difficult if the Government tried to proceed in this House in the same way as they proceeded in the other place—that is, by rejecting every amendment in unequivocal terms. This is a matter on which many Conservative Members feel strongly. For example, many of us have long been concerned about the situation that pertains on Good Friday, which is now becoming an ordinary working day for a great many people. This is unacceptable to Christians, and I do not want to see it happening to Sundays.
My right hon. Friend and I had a semi-joking exchange on this matter last Thursday, during business questions. I hope that he will use the recess to consult his colleagues and consider what can be done to meet the real concerns of many hon. Members on both sides of the House and large numbers of people outside, and to try to get a sensible and workable measure on the statute books, and one that will not offend large numbers of people.

Mr. Jack Ashley: I hope that the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) will not mind if I do not follow him in detail, although I shall speak about the Ministry of Defence.
I hope that the House will not adjourn for the Easter recess until we have considered the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, section 10. This section deprived service men and ex-service men of the right to sue for negligence, no matter how gravely or seriously disabled they may be. It also deprives the families of service men who have been killed by negligence of the right to sue. Not only that, but it deprives them of the information—to which they are entitled—about what happened. In talking to many of the families involved, and certainly many of the ex-service men involved, one finds a deep feeling about the lack of information—information to which they have been refused access by the Ministry of Defence.
The Ministry of Defence has an appalling record when it comes to discussing the rights of service men and ex-service men which are relevant to section 10. The Ministry of Defence says that they are public servants, but other public servants have the right to sue when they are damaged by negligence or their dependants have the right to sue if they are killed by negligence. Police and firemen have that right but apparently service men must be denied it. It is wrong to deprive service men, or their dependants when they are killed, of that right.
What are the arguments of the Ministry of Defence for keeping this outrageous anachronism? First, it says that there is no easy dividing line between military and other action. That is nonsense. Any service man or anyone who


has been in the firing line can soon put it right about what is military action and what is not. Therefore, there is no problem of definition.
Secondly, the Ministry of Defence says that discipline would be affected if service men or ex-service men were given that right. Of course, that is nonsense. Legal redress has nothing to do with discipline. The Ministry of Defence cannot use that bogus argument. Thirdly, it says that negligence is hard to prove. Of course it is hard to prove, but it is also hard to prove in civil cases. The proof should be decided not by the Minister or his civil servants but by a court of law. If a claim is to be made it should be decided upon by the courts, so there is no argument for saying that it is hard to prove.
Fourthly, the Minister says—Ministers have said this in parliamentary answers—that section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 has existed for 38 years and therefore it must be pretty good. There could not be a more bogus argument than that. In fact, the existence of that section for 38 years has outraged service men and ex-service men over the years. It has caused very great distress to them. Simply because it has existed for so long does not mean that it is satisfactory. When section 10 was introduced in 1947 by a Labour Government—this is a non-party political matter—the then Attomey-General, Sir Hartley Shawcross, gave a clear impression that, even though the section must be brought in, the awards of compensation would not in any way be diminished. He was not speaking of any specific award but he said that, overall, service men would be entitled to the same kind of pension as other people would get, or would have got if they had recourse to law. Experience proves that that is quite wrong. Service men are now deprived of adequate compensation, even though they may be severely damaged by negligence.
An organisation has now been set up called the Section Ten Abolition Group, STAG for short. It is a group of ex-service men who are deeply angered and embittered by the attitude of the Ministry of Defence over the years. Its chairman is Mrs. Carol Mills and she is doing a marvellous job in combining and unifying the people who are involved.
Mrs. Mills and her husband lost their son in especially tragic circumstances. He was burnt to death when a missile backfired. The family have been deprived of the right to information about the death of their son. I think that they are entitled to it. They have certainly been deprived of the right to sue for damages. They are not after the money; it is the principle involved.
Mrs. Mills and her husband came with me to see the Secretary of State for Defence on a deputation a few weeks ago. They are parents whose son had been appallingly burned and died and they think that it was due to negligence. Also on that deputation was one of my constituents, Martin Ketterick. He is now paralysed from the waist down and is appallingly disabled. The accident occurred when a rope was cut as he was abseiling down a cliff. He thinks that that was due to negligence. Those are clearly very sad and tragic cases and those people presented their case to the Secretary of State.
Let me place it on record that the Secretary of State listened carefully to what we all had to say and gave us a very good reception and response. I pay tribute to him for the way in which he received that deputation. It was a splendid response. He did not commit himself, he could not commit himself, and I did not expect him to. However,

I am making these remarks now because I want to press the Ministry of Defence, including the Secretary of State. I have no confidence in the Ministry of Defence, as distinct from the Secretary of State, because the same civil servants are advising this Secretary of State as have advised successive Secretaries of State for years. They have badly advised Ministers and they have given all the excuses that I have presented to the House.
I hope that the Secretary of State will bring forward legislation. I hope that he will abolish section 10 of the Act. If he does—or whatever he does—I hope that there will be retrospective provisions. If there is not, Mr. and Mrs. Mills, Martin Ketterick and all the service men who attended the inaugural meeting which I set up in the Jubilee Room at the House of Commons will be deprived of the rights which I hope will be given to service men and women in the future. It would be quite wrong to exclude them after all their campaigning.
If the Secretary of State feels unable to help, these ex-service men and the relatives of those who have died under what we think are circumstances of negligence, may find it necessary to parade outside the Ministry of Defence and outside recruiting offices to let potential recruits know that they are denied the right to sue for negligence which is given to all public servants. We hope that it will not be necessary. I do not think that it will be necessary because of the way in which the Secretary of State received us and responded to us. I hope that in his response he will show that there is no justification for depriving service men of this basic right and that he will act accordingly as soon as possible.

Sir Julian Ridsdale: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity of saying how disappointed I was to read the announcement in The Daily Telegraph today that a House of Commons written answer yesterday said that an early Bill will be introduced, presumably in the next Queen's Speech, to transfer pilots to the control of harbour authorities. It also said that Trinity House is to lose its responsibility as the principal pilotage authority of Britain's harbours after almost 500 years.
I have been doing my best to prevent the need for that legislation over the past 15 months. For that work and the help that I have given to pilots over the years as the Member for Harwich, a few weeks ago I received an honorary pilot's licence from the Deputy Master of Trinity House. I feel that I should declare that interest.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Mr. Mitchell), because when he was Under-Secretary of State for Transport he took great care and trouble to bring all the interested parties together. If he had stayed in that post and the Department had not been so hopelessly overworked, I believe that he would have succeeded. But I still believe that it is possible to proceed without legislation.
I am glad to have had this opportunity to appeal over the head of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I appeal to her to find time to tell my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, as soon as possible, to make one more effort to reach agreement between the parties concerned. The proposal for legislation is that pilotage should be placed under the port authorities, and pilots should give up their fee-earning, self-employed status and become the employees


of the port authorities. Indeed, the very same proposal came from a report chaired by the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr.Mikardo) in 1966.
Now port authorities are local authorities, and have the same behaviour patterns, both managerial and fiscal, as other local authorities. At a time when the Government are seeking to curb the power of local authorities and to privatise services within them, is it not an anachronism and an anomaly that a group of self-employed, fee-earning people should face with being taken over by such a group? Do we really want to take the control of pilots away from Trinity House after 500 years? I have yet to find a good reason for doing so. Do we really want to weaken the authority of an institution that has been doing its job for so long?
For my part, I could not support such legislation, and I know that many of my hon. Friends feel very strongly about the issue. That is why I appeal to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to tell the Secretary of State to make one more effort to reach agreement, and that is why I am grateful to you, Mr.Deputy Speaker, for calling me and enabling me to make this eleventh hour appeal to prevent such legislation. It does not in any way follow the political principles in which I or many of my hon. Friends, believe.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: It is a pleasure to speak after the hon. Member for Harwich (Sir J. Ridsdale) because, like him, I shall raise a maritime matter. I hope that he will find it interesting. It involves a defence issue, and I know he has a special interest in defence matters.
I urge hon. Members not to agree to adjourn for the recess until we have discussed the impending decision on the auxiliary oiler replenishment vessel. The issue is of enormous importance to my constituents, to the north-east and to our national defence. I shall briefly outline the background to it.
In 1979, Swan Hunter was commissioned by the Ministry of Defence to carry out a feasibility study for a new generation of fleet replenishment vessels called AORs. The AOR is designed to complement the type 23 frigate, providing fuel, provisions, maintenance, and extra helicopters, as well as its own defence systems. It operates at a speed compatible with the type 23 frigate, and without the AOR the type 23 frigate programme makes no sense.
When Swan Hunter, the major shipyard in my constituency, was privatised, it was sold as a supplier of warships, in particular of fleet auxiliaries, to the Royal Navy. Over the past 25 years Swan Hunter has supplied the Royal Navy with 32 per cent. of all the Royal Navy's surface warships, 39 per cent. of all its amphibious vessels and, most importantly, 84 per cent. of all major royal fleet auxiliaries.
The importance of major royal fleet auxiliaries as a source of work for Swan Hunter was stressed a year or two years ago when I met the hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont), who was then a Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry. He emphasised that Swan Hunter should look to that area for its future. Unfortunately, times have changed. Yet it is significant that the only AOR vessel to be built in the United Kingdom is the Kharg, which was built at Swan Hunter.
Although Swan Hunter is a shadow of its former self, it is still the country's premier shipbuilder. The AOR order is crucial to its survival as a major shipbuilder, so I am sure that hon. Members will readily understand my feelings and those of other Members of Parliament for the north-east, when we learned last week, through press leaks, that the order for the AORs was to be placed with Harland and Wolff. That is a devastating blow to the north-east of England and to the shipbuilding community that I represent. Perhaps more importantly, such a decision would be wrong and irrational on almost every single possible criterion.
I readily understand that to this Government cost is the most important criterion. Swan Hunter is a private sector company. It wins orders with competitive prices. Harland and Wolff uses public subsidies. It is important to remember that we are discussing pricing for a market that Harland and Wolff has not been in for 20 years, but Swan Hunter gets the majority of its business from that market.
It is widely rumoured that Harland and Wolff's bid for the AOR is below that of Swan Hunter. I fear that Harland and Wolff has been able to reduce its price because of cross-subsidy. Last year, Harland and Wolff received £37 million from the British taxpayer, and I fear that that financial assistance could give it the competitive edge. We are assured that there is no cross-subsidy, but it is impossible to tell until after the event. If there is no cross-subsidy, we may have an independent inquiry, conducted by Mr.Graham Day, or some other shipbuilder of national repute, into the state of affairs at Harland and Wolff. I understand from Swan Hunter that it would be only too willing to have a similar inquiry into its circumstances. Of course, Swan Hunter is privately owned, and there can be no question of cross-subsidy, and so on.
What will happen if price drift occurs afterwards? If Swan Hunter wins the order and there is price drift, the cost will be borne by the management. Their homes and private assets are on the line. But if Harland and Wolff has the order and there is price drift, the British taxpayer will have to pay. If John Parker, the chairman of Harland and Wolff, is so sure that there will be no price drift and is not just kidding the Prime Minister, let him and his management team put their homes and private assets on the line. I challenge him to do that. Last year, his wages rose to £67,000, which represented a rise of 45 per cent. That was not quite in line with Harland and Wolff's losses, which rose by only 20 per cent. to £36 million. I challenge him to put his assets on the line and to guarantee that he will personally take up any losses occasioned by price rises. But that will be too late for Swan Hunter, because it will be in extraordinarily dire straits if it does not get the order.
The argument about sub-contractors affecting the overall tender is sometimes advanced. Swan Hunter has allowed for that, but last year Harland and Wolff complained that the losses on its sub-contractors accounted for a substantial part of its overall losses. What guarantee is there that that will not happen again, and that the taxpayer will not have to pick up the bill? If that happens at Swan Hunter, the management and owners will have to pick up the bill. Is it fair that a company in the private sector, with only private resources, should be invited to tender for an order for which the Government originally said the private sector should fight, only to find itself fighting against a company that the Government own?
The AOR vessel is crucial to the type 23 programme. Without it, the type 23 programme is nonsense. It must be delivered on time if the very first of the type 23 frigates are to play the part that they are designed to play in our defence.
Let us consider Swan Hunter's delivery record. HMS Ark Royal, York, Illustrious and Exeter were all delivered ahead of schedule and within budget. That should be compared with the abysmal and lamentable record of Harland and Wolff.
The very first AOR—the lead vessel—must be there on time, yet, if the press leaks are correct, it is to be entrusted to the Belfast shipyard of Harland and Wolff. What a weapon for those in that community who wish to make political mischief. They would have a chance to undermine the main thrust of the Royal Navy's defence towards the end of this century.
What will be the effects on our community if we do not obtain the order? There will be 2,000 redundancies at Swan Hunter, reducing the work force to just over 2,000. We have just endured 2,800 redundancies in a community that already has one of the highest levels of unemployment in the country. With those further redundancies, unemployment in Newcastle upon Tyne, East would be the highest in the country, including Northem Ireland. That is something that our community could not endure.
The design team at Swan Hunter is a national asset. Swan Hunter had hoped that it would help the company to win orders. It is one of the aspects of the business that gives the company a competitive edge. That team will be broken up, and it will be impossible to reassemble it.
Having outlined the depressing effects on our community, I should like to urge the Government to consider a compromise. It would be possible to share the work between Harland and Wolff and Swan Hunter. If the first lead vessel were given to Swan Hunter, the second could be placed with Harland and Wolff. Swan Hunter needs the work immediately. The redundancies will be declared as soon as it is announced that the work is to go to Harland and Wolff. At Harland and Wolff there is sufficient work until 1987, when the second vessel would come on stream. The two yards could co-operate to their mutual benefit, and the Ministry of Defence would share that advantage.
I ask the Government to consider factors other than price. If that is held to be an unreasonable demand in this era of competition and free markets, may I say that the last time the Ministry of Defence was ordering frigates, the previous Secretary of State felt quite free to place a type 22 frigate, which Swan Hunter had won in competitive tender, with Cammell Laird instead at an extra cost to the British taxpayer of £9 million. He made a decision on social grounds. It may have been perfectly proper to do so, but our community paid the price; and it seems that we are to pay the price on the AOR, too.
I conclude on two points of principle. First, can it be right for a privatised company, trying to fight in a difficult market, to be forced to compete with a state-subsidised enterprise? Like is not being compared with like. The owners, management and work force of Swan Hunter are 100 per cent. behind the company. The energy and effort that the directors and owners of Swan Hunter put into the bids made over the weekend in trying to achieve the reversal of what was understood to be an inevitable decision—trying to make an eleventh hour appeal to the Government to reconsider the position—is testament to

their will to survive and to the will of the community that shipbuilding should survive on Tyneside. They deserve credit for that.
Secondly, there is the broader politics of the situation. Last Thursday, the Prime Minister courteously received me and my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett). The right hon. Lady took an interest in the situation, and I am grateful to her for that. But I must emphasise that Tyneside fears that it will be paying the price for the Anglo-Irish agreement. If so, that would be grotesquely unfair. It would not be in the national interest, and it would certainly not be in the interests of the community that I represent.

Mr.Greg Knight: I wish to raise one local and one national matter. I am sure that the problems of itinerants or gipsies have from time to time concerned most hon. Members. There is currently a problem in Derby over a specific site, and the matter has been referred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
A dispute has arisen between two local authorities over the suitability of land at Chequers lane in my constituency as a site for itinerants. Both the authorities are controlled by the Labour party. Derby city council takes the view that the land is inappropriate for that purpose, and I concur with that view. The county council takes a different view. In my view the county council is wrong, for a number of reasons. First, valid objections and public opinion on the matter appear to have been disregarded. A petition has been signed by 1,495 people and presented to me, and a delegation went to the county offices at Matlock, but so far it appears that the views expressed have been dismissed by the county councillors.
There is an alternative use for the site—an industrial use. The land is ideal for industrial development, and in my view should be so used. I feel that any other development of the Chequers lane site would be detrimental to, or at any rate not harmonious with, adjoining industry.
I should like to read brief extracts from two of a number of letters that I have received. The first is from the chief executive of Bemrose Corporation, who says:
We genuinely believe that location of a permanent gipsy site at Chequers Lane could seriously damage our security business and jeopardise employment prospects in this part of Derby. This view is shared by adjacent employers and in particular by Joseph Mason plc and Sawley Packaging which is owned by Rolls Royce … Bemrose does support the alternative proposal for development of the site for industrial purposes.
The writer makes a number of other comments.
I have also had a letter from the managing director of Joseph Mason, paint manufacturers, who says:
We are not against the principle of provision of a gipsy site, but we can see no merit whatsoever in immersing such a site in the centre of such a vital and sensitive industrial area … The site is also bounded by the very busy A52 arterial road. This stretch of A52 has already resulted in the loss of life of children without, at present, any adjacent dwellings. To place a gipsy site within throwing distance of this road appears madness.
The proximity of the A52 to the site presents a potential danger to children. I am also not happy about the fact that the site is adjacent to a large cemetery. There is a far more suitable site to the north of the city, just outside the city boundary. I ask the Minister to convey my comments to


my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. There are serious objections to the proposed use of the site, and I hope that they will be passed on.
The other matter is of national importance. I am referring to the dangerous and growing use and abuse of crossbows in Britain. An item in today's Daily Telegraph is typical of many news reports of the past couple of years. It is headed:
Probation for Crossbow Attack Man".
The report begins:
A man who fired a crossbow bolt through a neighbour's leg in a row over water dripping from a balcony in a block of flats was placed on probation for two years and ordered to live in a special hostel by Bromley magistrates yesterday.
That shows the growing menace that innocent people face from the misuse of crossbows. People, pets and animals up and down the country are being injured and are at risk. It was reported to me that a shopkeeper who sells these items made the comment that restrictions are unnecessary because we are talking only about bows and arrows. We are not talking only about bows and arrows. We are talking about a highly sophisticated weapon that is based on a metal frame. In some instances, it can cause damage up to a quarter of a mile away.
It may be said that the misuse of crossbows is to some extent covered by the present law. I accept that the Prevention of Crime Act 1953, for example, makes it an offence to possess any offensive weapon in a public place without lawful authority or reasonable excuse. Furthermore, in many areas local byelaws prohibit the discharge of missiles in a street or public place.
The existing law is attempting to tackle the problem after an offence has been committed. Our law does not always follow this principle. For example, the view is taken that shotguns are so dangerous that the law should seek to prevent offences from being committed by the restriction of ownership. The time has come when the House ought to consider adopting similar measures for crossbows. It is a growing problem.
I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to urge the Home Secretary to treat crossbows in the same manner as shotguns and introduce a licensing system. I accept that a licensing system would impose additional duties on the police and that it would cost money, but a licensing system would do something else. At the very least, it would reduce injury and suffering both to animals and to man. In my view, new restrictions would do more. They would probably save lives.

Mrs.Gwyneth Dunwoody: I do not believe that it can altogether be an accident that so many of the subjects that have been raised in this debate relate to the Ministry of Defence. The hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) referred to crossbows. That is an important matter, with which we should be concerned.
I do not think that the House should adjourn without discussing what is happening to the royal ordnance factories. The royal ordnance factory Radway Green was in my constituency until the boundaries were redrawn. It now lies in the constituency of the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton). That factory has just announced over 600 redundancies. It would be helpful if we could look briefly at what has happened to this factory. It raises a number of very worrying national issues.
The royal ordnance factories were given the impression by the Government before they were privatised that the relationship that existed between them and the Ministry of Defence would be continued. The royal ordnance factory Radway Green, which is in the small arms division but which produces large amounts of ammunition, worked very hard to replace the ammunition stores of the British Army after the Falklands war. Last year it worked extremely hard, including much overtime, which resulted in a considerable amount of stress on its staff, to replace those ammunition stocks. However, it has become very clear in the last few months that the Ministry of Defence has moved away from its previous relationship with the royal ordnance factories in more senses than one.
Three years ago, hardly any orders for bullets or rounds of ammunition were placed outside Britain. However, since then there has been a radical change. Last year very large orders were placed with a number of foreign companies. Doubtless the Ministry of Defence would say that this is because NATO has standardised its ammunition and that value for money can be demonstrated by making purchases abroad. The difficulty about that argument is that the orders have been placed almost entirely—in four out of five cases—with nationalised ammunition factories. For example, orders have been placed with factories in Belgium and Norway which are owned by the Governments of those countries.
When I asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he was convinced about the accuracy of the price for ammunition I was told that it was a very difficult question and that it was one for the individual companies to decide because they are very much concerned with their own intemal pricing mechanism.
We are now facing a very dangerous situation. Radway Green is an example of what is happening throughout the royal ordnance factories. For the last two months it has had no orders for ammunition on its order books. The Ministry of Defence ceased negotiations with Radway Green about its new demands for the coming season, with the result that immediately there were 600 redundancies. Unless there is a rapid improvement, Radway Green may face increasing problems. The Ministry of Defence has placed orders in Norway and Belgium and with a private company in Germany that has direct connections with the Flick empire.
When I questioned the Secretary of State about the political thinking behind this policy, he said that this would happen only if British factories were incapable of supplying the ammunition. He also said that the national interest would always be taken into consideration before orders were placed abroad. However, it is clear from the dates on which the orders were signed that this did not apply to the ammunition that was bought from foreign countries.
It will be very dangerous if the royal ordnance factories are being deprived of orders by the Ministry of Defence for political reasons—perhaps to drive down the price before they come on to the market, in order to ensure that when they are sold there will be ready buyers, because they contain a great deal of expensive and efficient machinery that has been paid for by the taxpayer. On a previous occasion the United Kingdom allowed its munitions factories to be run down disastrously while other countries, often using City of London money,


financed their burgeoning munitions factories. The result was a world war which Britain had to fight very hard to win.
I want the Secretary of State to come to the House and make it clear that when he says that he will not regard the royal ordnance factories as commercial units he is sincere. If the deals that he does with the royal ordnance factories are not sufficient to keep the factories viable, Britain will soon be incapable of supplying her own conventional arms needs. Those who do not believe in nuclear weapons have a strong responsibility to make it clear that we believe in the provision of conventional arms to protect this country.
It is ironic that this Government, who refer frequently to their commitment to defence, are apparently prepared to destroy the efficient royal ordnance factories without having any very clear idea of why they are doing so. Hon. Members know that the Leader of the House is a very responsible person and a very honest politician. This is not simply a party political matter. It relates to the provision of proper means of defence for the United Kingdom. If the royal ordnance factories are allowed to go into disuse, or are allowed to become incapable of supplying the British forces with the ammunition that they need, the only conclusion that we shall be able to draw is that the much vaunted patriotism of this Government ends when the quick sale of any asset is involved. That is the danger which we face.
In the future I do not want to come to the House to ask how we will create a system of royal ordnance factories to supply conventional arms to the British forces because so much of the ammunition is made abroad and we no longer control the market or have any efficient or viable way of maintaining our own factories. That is the danger. If the Secretary of State is not aware of it, he should be. He should answer to the House for his present behaviour.

Mr.John Stokes: I am sure the House will listen carefully to the serious matters concerning the royal ordnance factories which were mentioned by the right hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). I hope that the Ministry of Defence will give her a full reply.
I do not think the House should adjourn for the Easter recess until it has had an opportunity to debate the appointment of a Committee of both Houses to consider ways of celebrating the tercentenary of the 1688 revolution. I think few people would deny that the revolution which turned James II off the throne and brought in William of Orange and subsequent political changes, including the Bill of Rights, are historical events of first-rate importance which should be suitably commemorated.
No doubt the Committee will raise all kinds of suggestions to celebrate the event. I would suggest that a banquet of both Houses should be held in Westminster Hall. That has not occurred since the coronation of George IV and it would be a much more jolly event than a series of rather ponderous speeches. It is important that we should, from time to time, remember the great events of our history and refresh ourselves from our roots. I shall return to this point later in my speech.
It is important that we should commemorate the events of 1688 in a calm and dispassionate way. We do not want a Whig interpretation of those events, as outlined in Macaulay's history. For a Tory there is a good deal to be

sad about what happened in 1688. The legitimate royal line was overthrown in favour of a Dutchman, even though his Stuart wife ruled in name equally with him. A number of the great magnates of the country turned traitor to their king. John Churchill, who later became the Duke of Marlborough, was in charge of the king's army to fight William but then went over to William's side.
On the other hand, we should remember some of the bishops of the Church of England who emerged with great credit, as they refused to swear an oath to William, having sworn an oath of allegiance to James. They were called the non-jurors and they have an honoured place in Anglican history. The main trouble about James II was his fanatical attraction to Roman Catholicism. That led him into all his errors. The rebellion was not, in any sense, the introduction of democracy into these islands.
Indeed, after 1688, the government became more and more of an oligarchy and the power of the Crown to intervene if necessary to protect the poor, as Strafford and Laud had done, was permanently crippled. Disraeli was fond of referring to this aspect of the rebellion. Nevertheless, the rebellion brought to an end the struggle for power between king and Parliament. The monarch remained the chief executive until 1714 when the Hanoverians came here but could not speak English.
Fortunately, the Church of England did not suffer. Although William was a Calvinist, Mary was a keen and devout Anglican, as was her sister, Queen Anne. Even at the time of George II, the Prime Minister, Walpole, was careful not to upset the Tory squires and clergy with regard to the Church by his policy of quieta non movere. Loosely translated, that means, let sleeping dogs lie.
It is important that we should remember these things. The constitution as it developed from 1688, with all its imperfections, and with its basis in the rights of property, was the foundation for Burke's attack, a century later, on the principles of the French revolution, which was based on the absurd notion of abstract rights. Since Burke's time, democracy has been fully developed in our constitution, although whether it has improved the quality of either this House or the other place is a moot point.
It is most important that we should remember that this country has a long and glorious history. We should nurture that and it should inspire us in all that we try to do here. This magnificent building, put up at the height of our power and influence in the 19th century, reminds us of our great past. It is important that we should never forget that past. We are not a new nation, as Germany and Italy are, but an old one. Our long history no doubt gives us that tolerance and poise which foreigners notice as the hallmark of our political stability. To listen to some people talk one would imagine that the political life of the country started only with the Beveridge report or with the Labour Government of 1945. We go back rather longer than that.
The idea of constitutional monarchy has developed in a marvellous way. All executive acts are done in the sovereign's name, but always with a Minister responsible to Parliament. The Queen also represents everybody from the highest to the lowest. That is a powerful force in the cohesion of the nation.
The hereditary peers have also survived, and long may they do so. They represent splendour, ceremony, tradition and, of course, independence. I only wish that in this House we had more representation of the landed interest. We need more squires and fewer lawyers, accountants, bankers, and book-keepers.
What a fortunate nation we are. We should be ever thankful for our constitution. We often need reminding of the pleasure that it brings to us. The celebrations will be extremely valuable. I am sure the Committee will do a good job. I am not in the least put off by the fact that a Pym is chairman, as the earlier Pym is, I gather, only a collateral ancestor. I am sure the present Pym is as good a royalist as any of us here.
The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) will have to curb his affection for the Levellers and the Diggers but I am sure that he will also contribute a great deal because of his love of English history. I wish the Committee well and if it wants any help or guidance I am always ready to oblige.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I am sure the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr Stokes) will accept my apologies for not following him in his line of thought. I am sure the House found his speech an entertaining interlude.
I support the pleas of the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) that something should be done about crossbows and it should be done quickly. I support my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) on the question of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 and Crown immunity. I also support my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Mr. Silkin) in his plea for some justice for speech therapists.
There are two matters on which I wish to address the Leader of the House. First, during the recess, the National Advisory Body for Public Sector Higher Education will announce the closure or proposal to close about 9,000 places in polytechnics and colleges of higher education. I believe that that will cause great consternation. People like myself believe that the Government should not be contemplating reducing places at higher education, that they should be expanding the places in higher education and that there ought to be an early opportunity for this House to debate these proposals.
I am also certain that hon. Members on both sides of the House will wish to make strong pleas about particular courses which are under attack. Therefore, I plead with the Leader of the House, if we cannot have a shorter recess to allow for a debate about the proposals to close places in higher education equivalent to the closure of one substantial polytechnic, to arrange either a statement or a debate as soon as we return after the Easter recess. Many hon. Members will wish to press the principle that there should be no closures, and even more hon. Members, especially Tory Members, will wish to plead that an institution in their constituency or their area should not close.
Some proposals have already leaked out and started to cause constemation. At Wolverhampton polytechnic, there is talk of closing the whole of the engineering course. My hon. Friends the Members for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) and for Wolverhampton South-East (Mr. Edwards) are making strong representations about that. Some people argue that, as the Government have closed so many engineering firms in the midlands, it is logical to close places on courses. However, the whole House will hope that we can rebuild the engineering industry of the west midlands and other areas, and that in the next 20

years we shall need more rather than fewer engineers. I hope that that proposal will be hotly debated, and that the Government can soon announce that it will not go through.
There are proposals to close fine arts courses, which, again, have been serving the nation well recently. It would not be fair to list all the places that are at present threatened, because the proposals will be announced on 4 April, and some of the rumours may be inaccurate. When we return on Tuesday, we shall have education questions, following which I hope that there may be a statement from the Secretary of State for Education and Science about the NAB proposals, so that individual Members can make representations about the principle and particular closures that affect their constituencies.
If the Leader of the House does not make that opportunity available, the Government will probably be pressed for a series of Adjournment debates, and through other procedures of the House. Therefore, it would be for the good order of the House if the Leader of the House could find an opportunity for an early statement on those NAB closures, and a chance for hon. Members to express their complete opposition to the loss of 9,000 places in higher education in 1987–88.
The second topic that I wish to raise relates to a firm in the Stockport area. It is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Arnold), who shares my concern. He was certainly spending a great deal of time yesterday and today trying to talk to the people involved to ensure that the jobs are not lost from his constituency.
As the people who work at Cableform Electrical Engineering of Romiley come from the whole of the Stockport area, I am sure that the Leader of the House will appreciate my concern about the matter. It is particularly alarming that this seems to be another example of financial manipulation, which has nothing to do with the genuine efforts of either the local management or work force. Cableform has been a successful firm in recent years. It has a good profit record, and good employee relations and, until last week, any hon. Member would have been pleased to have the firm in his constituency. Certainly, the people of Stockport were pleased that it offered such good job opportunities.
It appears that the parent company, Contech, got into financial difficulties because of its activities connected with technology in the North sea, and decided to put Cableform up for sale. Last week, assurances were given that a series of bidders would be considered, including a management buy-out bid. It was understood that the bids had to be in by yesterday. People are alarmed and upset because on Friday Contech announced that Fisher Karpark Electrical Engineers from Sowerby Bridge had concluded a preliminary deal, without the other bids being considered, and that a contract of sale to that company would be signed tomorrow. Not only would the sale go ahead without the consideration of the other bids, but it would result in the loss of all the jobs at Romiley, the closure of the factory and the transfer of the work to Sowerby Bridge.
I appreciate that the people in Sowerby Bridge would like to have those jobs, but I am sure that the Leader of the House will appreciate the considerable concern of the people in Stockport that, as a result of financial dealings, a successful company can be plucked from Stockport and moved elsewhere. Certainly all the hon. Members for the Stockport area are extremely alarmed at that proposal going ahead, especially in view of the fact that the


directors of Contech seem to have neglected their duties under the Companies Acts at least to take employees into account. Indeed, some would argue that they have failed to take into account even shareholders' genuine interests in quickly concluding a deal with Fisher Karpark Ltd. without waiting, as they had originally intended, to consider alternative bids.
I hope that the Leader of the House can give us assurances that the Department of Trade and Industry will look carefully at the matter, to see whether the Companies Acts have been observed. I hope that the Department of Employment will consider the implications of the sale, since I understand that notices of redundancy have been issued, and there should now be 90 days of discussion. It appears that those 90 days will be a complete farce because I am assured that in the agreement between Contech and Fisher Karpark it is proposed that, once the factory is empty of work, it could be sold back to Contech for some other activity.
I am sure that the Leader of the House will wish to consider the matter carefully. I assure him that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove and I are anxious to meet the management of Fisher Karpark and Contech to ensure that the jobs remain in Stockport, and that the people who have been working efficiently and loyally for the company are not thrown onto the scrap heap and the work transferred elsewhere.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I hope that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) will forgive me if I do not comment on or follow what he said. He will appreciate that he has been making some constituency points, and I intend to do likewise.
I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House because I am aware that this is the third occasion on which I have raised a particular constituency matter—that is, the NIREX proposal to site a nuclear waste dump in my constituency. You will recall that I had the opportunity to speak to the House during the Consolidated Fund debate, when I made it clear that my constituents are implacably opposed to the proposal. They are opposed on three grounds, and I shall summarise them briefly, because I have elaborated on them previously.
First, we do not believe that it is right, proper, safe or appropriate to dispose of intermediate-level nuclear waste, albeit of the short-life type, in a near-surface disposal facility. Secondly, we do not believe that the geological and hydrological properties to be found at Fulbeck make the site appropriate. Thirdly, we believe that the road network will make the safe transport of the material impossible.
I have made those points before and I should like to emphasise them tonight. I know that a similar approach is adopted by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) who shares my views on this matter. I should not be in the least surprised if my hon. Friend sought to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to make his observations.
Since I had the opportunity of speaking about this matter during the Consolidated Fund debate, two particular points have arisen which require some consideration. The first is financial loss. It is important to realise that my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes are suffering real

financial loss. When a person seeks to sell a property he may find that, as a direct result of the NIREX announcement, he is unable to sell that property at all or at its full price. My constituents and those of my hon. Friend are therefore suffering substantial financial loss. Society has no policy to deal with that loss, as NIREX is not under a statutory duty to compensate, and there is no other authority to which my constituents can go.
My constituents are suffering financial loss through no fault of their own, and the House must, as a matter of urgency, discuss what can be done to help people suffering in these circumstances. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes and I are corresponding with the chairman of NIREX in an attempt to agree upon compensation schemes. I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that that is an inadequate approach, and we will in due time be pressing for a proper compensation scheme, if necessary backed by the authority of the House.
My other point is a more narrow one. The spokesman for NIREX has made it clear that the road transport communications for Fulbeck are inadequate and that, unless a great deal of public money is spent on upgrading those roads, there is no possibility of NIREX using Fulbeck. My constituents and I are extremely angry to learn that intense anxiety, concern and fear have been caused, when it now seems that the road transport system is inadequate even in the view of NIREX. I wonder whether NIREX is behaving in a responsible fashion. The hostility to these proposals in Lincolnshire is intense, it spans all parties, and it is implacable, and I hope that it succeeds in defeating the proposals.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will be able to help me on one or two matters. As he will know, about three weeks ago the Select Committee on the Environment published a report on the disposal of nuclear waste. There were a number of conclusions in that report, some of which do not directly touch on the matter that I am raising. Some, however, do.
First, the Select Committee reports that there is no urgency for a new facility. We know that the low-level material can continue to be disposed of at Drigg at least until the turn of the century, and probably beyond, especially if the modem technologies of incineration and compaction are more widely used. Moreover, the intermediate-level waste can continue to be stored where it is—on the stations and plants which produce it. There is, therefore no urgency.
Secondly, and perhaps most important, the Select Committee states in terms that a near-surface disposal facility—or if I may call it this, a dump—is not an appropriate way of disposing of intermediate-level waste, whether short-lived or long-lived. Yet NIREX is proposing to dispose of intermediate level waste in such a facility. NIREX is going in the face of the recommendations of the Select Committee report in the central feature of its policy.
The Select Committee makes it clear that the nuclear industry has not pursued a policy of sustained research into methods of disposing of these classes of material. That is one of the most serious criticisms of the industry that I have yet heard in a responsible publication.
We all know, and the Select Committee revealed, that there are other viable altemative methods of disposing of such material, notably in deep geological sites on land or in the sea bed. I should like my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to help me at this point. On any view


of the matter, the Select Committee has produced a report which contains conclusions which require and demand a detailed considered response. It seems to all of us concerned to be wrong that we should contemplate the possibility of having to debate the special development order before we have had an opportunity to debate the Select Committee's findings.
I would put it more strongly than that. This country, my constituents and the House will not understand how we can properly debate the special development order until the Select Committee report has been considered in detail by the Government, the Department and the nuclear industry, or before the House has considered, not just the report but the Government's and the industry's response to it. We could not justify such a course of action to our constituents. How can I tell my constituents that we are right to debate a special development order before we have considered the Select Committee's report? That is not possible, it would not be right, and my constituents would be right not to accept that.
It is imperative to a proper discussion of these special developments orders—should we reach that stage; on other occasions I shall seek to persuade my right hon. Friend not to reach that point—that we leave ample time to debate the Select Committee report in the context of a full and reasoned response by the Government, Departments and the nuclear industry. That is the request that I make to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House tonight.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Deus ex machina, the Leader of the House should go to the Ministry of Defence tomorrow morning, judging by the number of contributions pertaining to that Department. If he is the senior Cabinet Minister in the pecking order, he should summon the Secretary of State for Defence to his room.
The first defence issue can be dealt with rapidly, because it was covered by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley). Like him, I have been in contact with Mr. and Mrs. Mills. The tragic death of their son in possibly negligent circumstances in the Falklands makes revision of section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 imperative. I leave it at that, because my right hon. Friend put the case eloquently.
On a second topic, I make no apology for returning to the case of Mr. Clarence Robinson, which I raised after 1 am in the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill, and to the strategic defence initiative research.
First, what is the Government's view of the activities of Clarence Robinson, whose visit to Britain at the beginning of March was discussed on the Floor of the House, and especially of his attempt to suggest that his stay here was sponsored by British Aerospace? Secondly, what do the Government think in the light of Clarence Robinson's apparent duplicity in using the hospitality of British Aerospace to suggest that this lent him the necessary credibility to visit other firms, such as GEC-Marconi, to discuss classified research work which had already been denied to him? Those are not the actions of a simple innocent tourist. Mr. Clarence Robinson has a relationship with the Pentagon and the Government of the United States.
Thirdly, was Mr. George Gallagher-Daggitt, as the director with responsibility for university and research councils in the SDI organisation, correct in stating that academics taking part in the SDI innovative science and technology programme would retain the freedom to publish their research and that the opening exchange of scientific views would continue? Alternatively, was the spokesman for the United States embassy correct in describing the classification process, based on military critical review technology, as one which would deny freedom to publish research and would preclude the free and open exchange of scientific ideas? Both could not be right. Either the United States embassy or the senior official attached to both the Ministry of Defence and to the Department of Education and Science, presumably speaking for the British Government, was correct.
How much money can British academics hope to obtain from the United States SDIO's innovative science technology programme? Is it a little, as stated by George Gallagher-Daggitt, or is it a lot, as our leading universities appear to imagine?
Fourthly, does the deal between Westland Helicopters and United Technologies allow for the world-leading technology of Westland's research into composite materials to be permanently removed from the United Kingdom for the sole use of United Technologies to further its aspirations to secure SDI research contracts with that same technology?
Fifthly, were the Prime Minister and the Government informed and has approval been given for discussion of the detailed and classified items from the memorandum of understanding by the strategic defence initiative organisation meeting in Washington today on Tuesday 25 March? Was permission sought from the Secretary of State for Defence by the Government or by the United States to discuss the contents of the memorandum of understanding at that seminar in Washington today?
Sixthly, what practical reason can the Secretary of State for Defence now provide for not publishing the memorandum of understanding and for not allowing a full and proper debate on the commercial, legal and diplomatic issues which it raises, now that the SDIO has taken a unilateral decision to discuss the contents of that agreement and what purports to be a private meeting with British companies in Washington—the terms under the export of goods control order and extra-territoriality?
Seventhly, will the Secretary of State for Defence eventually tell the House what are the specific arrangements outlined in the memorandum of understanding which cover the following issues, all of which I understand are being discussed in Washington at the meeting today: first, the security procedure; secondly, the administration of contracts; thirdly, the limitations of the memorandum of understanding; fourthly, the right for Anglo-American partners within the SDI programme to attend conferences together; fifthly, the arrangements which must be made for face-to-face meetings; sixthly, any other administrative procedures with a bearing on security or on the classification of research and development work; seventhly, the intellectual property rights; eighthly, the national and international trade laws; ninthly, the requirement for Government guarantees to underwrite SDI research; and, tenthly, any penalty clauses attendant on the award of SDI research contracts.
Eighthly, will the Secretary of State for Defence say whether he has taken any action, and what was that action,


to quell the fears of the British research community that participation in SDI will in the near future have detrimental effects on the free access to scientific research and collaboration in development, free trade in high technology products and the freedom of individuals to discuss scientific and technical ideas?
Ninthly, does the Ministry of Defence have any plans to publish parts of the memorandum of understanding in the form of a commercial guide for British firms participating in SDI?
I have been very precise and very detailed. I do not apologise to the House at all, because this is a matter of gargantuan importance. I am glad that the Leader of the House is nodding in agreement, because, whatever may be the differences between the Government and their critics, of whom I am one, I do not think that either of us would in any way underestimate the vast importance of what is loosely called star wars, although I prefer to stick to technical terms.
I wish to raise another matter which I first raised in the form of a parliamentary question on 18 December 1985. I asked the Secretary of State for Defence
what financial payment his Department is making to Mr. Jim Smith following disclosures by him to the Department which led to £400,000 excess profits being recovered by the Department in respect of defence contracts placed with his then employer; and if he will make a statement."—[Official Report, 18 December 1985; Vol. 89, c. 215.]
To save time, I shall not go over the detailed answers.
The issue here is: what are the Government's obligations to what are loosely called whistle blowers? I refer to a number of press cuttings to establish the view that this is not an esoteric interest. On 16 December 1985 Mr. Richard Norton-Taylor, writing in The Guardian, said:
The principle that whistle-blowers should be compensated is recognised in some cases by the Inland Revenue, which can reward people for information about companies or other individuals.
Mr. Stephen Bates, writing in the Daily Telegraph two days before Christmas, on 23 December, said of Mr. Jim Smith:
The Ministry praised him for his 'public spirited co-operation' in its post-costing operation with Aish, which has repaid £421,000 but has refused to consider compensating Mr. Smith for the loss of his job. He is on the dole and is having to sell his house in Camford Cliffs, Dorset.
On 30 November, an article in The Economist, under the heading
Thanks ever so, Mr. Smith",
ended by saying:
The Ministry's policy is not likely to win over many other prospective whistle blowers. If it wants people to risk their jobs to safeguard the public purse it had better stand ready to compensate those who lose thereby with something more than hot air.
Again in The Guardian, on 21 December, it was reported that Sir Gordon Downey, the Comptroller and Auditor General—as a former member of the Public Accounts Committee, I always take Comptrollers and Auditors General seriously—told the Committee:
Mr.Smith's allegations clearly had a significant impact on the volume and effectiveness of the MoD's post-costing activity with this firm.
The basic story is that Jim Smith tried to stop Aish bluntly ripping off the Ministry of Defence by subtle accounting methods introduced to the company by a new executive. Jim Smith was sacked in the middle of a board meeting when he refused to agree to what looked like being a fiddle of accounts. The next day he passed to the

Ministry of Defence all the information about what he saw as a racket. He sued for unfair dismissal and lost in a nasty case of miscarriage of justice. The tribunal made it clear that it found against him because there was no evidence, so it said, of excess profits. But at the same time the Ministry of Defence accountants, who had been helped by Jim Smith, had exposed huge excess profits. Later, £400,000 was paid back by the company and it agreed not to charge another £350,000 which it had originally asked for. Now, almost every week more slabs of money are being paid back to the taxpayer.
Meanwhile, Jim Smith, who brought the situation about, found his business collapsing. He worked as a consultant in a close-knit circle of people who understand defence accounting. One by one, for their own reasons, they started to desert him. Work from the Ministry and from the defence industry around the Ministry dried up. Almost at once he found himself without an income. He had been used to a high income and had a big mortgage which he could not pay. Now he faces eviction and all sons of illness and family problems.
I come to a matter which should, I think, concern colleagues of all parties. I am informed that the Treasury has said that it would consider a recommendation for compensation if it came from the Ministry of Defence. No one knows better than the Leader of the House how careful the Treasury can be. Will he find out from the Treasury—I shall put down a parliamentary question to establish it—whether my information is correct and precisely the terms in which the Treasury has said, or has been alleged to say, to the Ministry of Defence that it would consider a recommendation for compensation?
I understand that the Ministry of Defence absolutely refuses to pay a penny. It now claims that Jim Smith did not tell it at once about the excess profits and is producing all sorts of things—the worst is lies—from Ministry officials to substantiate its claim. I put against that what is in public print from the Comptroller and Auditor General, Sir Gordon Downey. Why should the Ministry be so uncharitable to a man who has saved it £1 million or more and in the process has exposed the way in which other contractors may well be fiddling their profits?
Will the Leader of the House tackle the Secretary of State for Defence about the actions in this matter of his Ministry's arms sales directorate and the way it has worked on the key contracts committee of the Defence Manufacturers Association? On that association, was there any director of Aish? Bluntly, could it be that the arms sales directorate is in some way protecting its friends and an industry which would be heavily exposed if people like Jim Smith were encouraged to come forward? While Smith is in the mire, others like him might be discouraged and malpractices would go on.
I recollect that in 1974 Alan Grimshaw came to Parliament to tell us about malpractice in the National Coal Board, then under the chairmanship of Lord Robens. His information was certainly used to save the board about £7 million, but the coal board sacked Grimshaw and he died a few years later in poverty and bitterness. He was a decent man and the way he was treated was a disgrace to Parliament. Parliament owes something to Jim Smith and to those who are prepared to stand up for the public interest.
Mr. Paul Foot writes:
Jim Smith is a brilliant and honest accountant. He helped to save the taxpayer three quarters of a million pounds by telling


the truth about the company he worked for. He's been rewarded with an offer of supplementary benefit, and is being forced to sell his house.
In The Mirror of 6 February the story was repeated.
I must tell the Leader of the House that I have been rather careful about this matter. In making a speech of this kind one does not simply rely on one, two or even three sources of information. I have been worried about the matter for some time, ever since before Christmas, when I started putting questions. It raises a broader question about the way in which civil servants and those who work for the public service and are concerned with the public interest are treated by this House.
This is neither the time nor the place to go into all the lessons of the trial at the Old Bailey 13 months ago of Clive Ponting. One of the lessons I learned from it is that there should be some board outside the Civil Service to which those who are either in the Civil Service or have relations in it can go. One step would be to make the head of the Civil Service rather different from the Cabinet Secretary, because the juxtaposition of those two jobs is deeply unsatisfactory.
In the absence of a really independent head of the Home Civil Service there ought to be some board organisation—all right, consisting of retired mandarins or people who know—to which someone in difficulty, like Jim Smith or Clive Ponting, could go to explain his side of the story. The Labour party is now committed to such a board or organisation. I want to know tonight and in the coming weeks whether the Leader of the House thinks that the House of Commons has given proper treatment to Jim Smith in the light of the service that he performed for this nation.

Mr. Fred Silvester: I listened riveted to the story of Jim Smith told by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). It is slightly within my knowledge, because I am a member of the Public Accounts Committee. I wish him well in his pursuit of the case.
I want to raise another matter which, like that raised by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), arises in a neighbouring constituency but which is now of major concern to all the members of the local authority, in my case in Manchester, not Stockport. The matter has now become one of national concern. I refer to the situation at the Poundswick school in Manchester.
Let me refresh the memory of the House. Hon. Members will simply know of this matter as the graffiti case. The trouble with this case, like so many, is that it hit the headlines and then disappeared. Such cases are a matter of interest for a few moments. People take a glancing interest, make a few speeches, have a demonstration and then the matter goes away. But the people who are affected have to go on and bear the burden. In this case that burden is still being borne to this day.
I wish to bring the matter to the attention of the House before we rise because it is rather urgent and Easter is crucial in the story. The story began on 18 June last year when there was some grossly obscene graffiti, so obscene that it has never been published and is simply passed around from hand to hand, that made remarks about members of staff and their families. It was carefully

planned, some of it being written backwards so that it would be seen through the windows outside, and most of it was of enormous size.
Five pupils admitted to the headmaster that they were responsible. The governors of the school investigated the matter and agreed with the headmaster that the pupils should be sent away. The local authority overturned that decision. As a result of the local authority's decision, teachers refused to teach the five pupils. That was the beginning of a long-running dispute.
It is impossible to describe to the House the effect that that has had on the school. The school has been totally ruined. The boys concerned were in the fifth year and the latest data that I have, which are from March, show that the number of pupils attending in the fifth year is 6 per cent. of the total. But the effect goes throughout the school. Fifteen per cent. of the fourth year are attending; 36 per cent. or one third, of the third year; 58 per cent. of the second year; and only 71 per cent. of the first year. It can be seen that the effect of the dispute has ricocheted throughout the school and has had a devastating effect.
Alas, there is more to it than that. The local authority caused this trouble. I make no bones about saying that there is a strong political element in it. Leaving that on one side, it made its position known and that was the bed that it had to lie on. For a long time, the battle raged and the unions refused to allow the teachers to teach. At the end of last year an agreement was reached with the National Union of Teachers and one of the other unions that the teachers would go back. The condition on which they were to go back was that they would not have to teach the five boys.
That sounds wonderful, until it is realised that the five boys were sitting in the classroom with a number of other children. The local authority was signing an agreement with its own teachers saying that the pupils in their care were no longer, by remit of the local authority, to be taught by their own teachers. In other words, because the five boys were going to turn up—nine councillors turned up at the gates to make sure that they did turn up—the other pupils in the classes were not to be taught. That, by any standards—I am delighted to see that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) has joined us—is disgraceful.
I urge the House to consider where we go from here. I put down a question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, which he answered on Monday, asking him to intervene or to do something to put the matter right. His reply, which I half expected, was that it is a local authority matter and he cannot intervene. I would question that, and the matter is now extremely urgent. I would question it because a local authority has the duty to provide education for the pupils in its area.
Of course, we all know that if there is a normal dispute certain circumstances will arise. But this is not a normal industrial dispute. It is a situation in which the local authority itself has put its hand to an agreement by which it deliberately excludes certain of its pupils from proper teaching.
A number of suggestions have been made: that the boys should be taught elsewhere; that special private tuition should be given to them. Obstinately, they refuse to consider them. They say that they wish to go to the school and to hell with the other pupils who are left outside. They say that the other union, which is the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers, which has


refused to go along with this agreement, should go along with it. If it did, the net effect would be that 177 of Manchester's pupils in the fifth year would not be receiving full-time education, by a ruling of their own local authority.
This is a matter of grave concern not only to Manchester, but to the whole of the education service. The Secretary of State has a duty to ensure that the local authority does not operate in this manner. It is particularly urgent and particularly sad because, as my hon. Friend will recognise, the fifth year is the most crucial for many schoolchildren. They will be taking their examinations this year.
Two things happen between now and the examination period. One is that, on 23 May, it is usual for fifth formers to leave school. That is quite normal, but they have the right to stay on until the end of July. So far, the local authority has refused to make any statement as to whether it will enforce the 23 May date. The effect will be that those teachers who are now out will not be able to take part in the planning for next year, so that the effects of this dispute will go on not only through the current academic year but into next year as well.
More important—I urge my hon. Friend, if he possibly can, to use his good offices to solve this problem—if those children in the fifth year, despite all the problems that they have had and all the efforts at studying at home and in other ways, turn up for those examinations and one of the five boys appears in the same room, all the teachers invigilating—not only members of the NAS/UWT, but all of them—will leave and the examinations for all those pupils will not take place.
There has to be a way of solving that, if nothing else, and I urge my right hon. Friend, before we rise for Easter, to have a word with his right hon. Friend so that something is done about it.

Mr. Michael Brown: I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr.Silvester) will forgive me if I do not follow his remarks, but of course the issue that he has raised is one that has hit the national headlines and we are all deeply concerned, like him, that there should be a solution to that very difficult problem.
I want, to follow the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), because he and I, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lyell) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Wakeham) have had a bombshell dropped upon our constituents in the form of the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on 25 February that we were to be the subject of a special development order to be laid before the House after the Easter recess which would foreshadow the possibility of our four constituencies being subjected to test drilling with a view to finding out whether one of them would be suitable for the dumping of nuclear waste.
In the case of my own constituency, the bombshell was dropped somewhat earlier than 25 February, because I found out in May last year that it was the intention of NIREX to recommend to the Secretary of State that my constituency should be included in that list.
I was not idle between last May and 25 February last year. I made several attempts to find out from my right

hon. and hon. Friends at the Department of the Environment whether the rumour that we had heard last May was true, but they refused to confirm or deny that rumour. The rumour became fact. I have to say that when I hear rumours about possible action to be taken by the Government or Government agencies in my constituency that is likely adversely to affect it, whereas in the past I was prepared to dismiss such rumours as idle speculation, I shall err on the side of believing them.
The argument against South Killingholme being chosen as a nuclear dump is similar to the argument aganst the use of Fulbeck, Colchester, South and Maldon and Mid-Bedfordshire. All those sites have good reasons for not being a nuclear dump. They all have special characteristics. I know three of the sites well for the simple reason, as I have said before, that when I make my weekly return journey from my house to this House, I pass through the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and within a mile of the village of Fulbeck. I am usually on side roads and going slowly, and I take the point that my hon. Friend made about the roads in his constituency. I drive through the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire, and he is right to draw attention to the density of population there.
I draw the attention of Ministers in the Department of Environment to the fact that South Killingholme has two oil refineries, is already housing, below ground, some several thousand gallons of liquid petroleum gas and is a village alongside the Humber bank that has more than its fair share of hazardous industries. I know that it could be said by Department of the Environment Ministers and NIREX—not publicly but privately—that as the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes has a constituency that is already a rubbish dump for the dangerous and hazardous materials produced in it, and he has already had the misfortune to represent, in his former constituency, the village of Flixborough, he can jolly well put up with the naming of the site.
The naming of South Killingholme as a site was based not on any reasons of geology or logic, but on one fact. The Central Electricity Generating Board happens to own a piece of dead land in my constituency for which it has no other use. It happens to be, by coincidence, a major shareholder in NIREX. It intimated to NIREX that it had no other use for the land, and that it would make a good rubbish dump for nuclear waste.
Rehearsing constituency points is for another occasion, but I wish to concentrate the attention of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham, that since the statement of 25 February there have been developments in the House with the publication of the report of the Select Committee on the Environment. My right hon. Friend shares a concern and responsibility for the Select Committee system. My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham said that it would not be understood in our four constituencies how it could be possible, at the end of April, for a special development order to be laid before the House, before the conclusions of the report have been considered by Ministers, NIREX, hon. Members and our constituents. It would make a mockery of the whole Select Committee procedure. It is a major report, very highly regarded on both sides of the House and chaired by an hon. Member who is well regarded by everybody. When he puts his name to a report of this kind it carries a certain honour and integrity.
Therefore, it is not simply a Select Committee report attacking the Government for party political purposes, to be tossed on one side; it is a report that concerns every hon. Member because the constituency of every hon. Member could have been a target. I am sure that every hon. Member, if the chips were down, would not be able to recommend to his constituents the dumping of nuclear waste in his constituency.
The Select Committee report cuts across all party lines and brings to the House and the country certain very important conclusions. I want to draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to some of the conclusions in the report, specifically paragraph 280, where the report states:
We therefore recommend that site selection criteria should be established in advance and published for each type of waste disposal route likely to be developed. Thereafter, the Department of the Environment should ensure that any possible future disposal sites identified by NIREX should satisfy the site selection criteria for that disposal option. Thus responsibility for final 'short-listing' of possible future sites should effectively rest with the Department of the Environment rather than NIREX".
My argument with my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department of the Environment is that they constantly tell me that the selection of my constituency was nothing to do with them and that it was a matter for NIREX. However, the Select Committee report states that it is the Department of the Environment which should take the responsibility for site selection.
I think that it would be wholly reprehensible for our Select Committee system if we were to have a special development order laid before the House which flies in the face of the evidence and recommendations made in the Select Committee report.
I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to respond not to passion—although we can adduce, and have adduced, passion—but to the cold logic put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and supported by myself. The case against a special development order for our four constituencies is arguable and we shall argue against it. However, the case against laying the special development order before the House before Ministers have had time to consider the report and their response to it is unanswerable.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) will experience, as I once did, the tremendous relief of learning that NIREX is no longer interested in his constituency. I say that not only because of my concern for his constituents—although if not his constituents, inevitably somebody else's, would suffer—but because my hon. Friend has made such a signal contribution to our debates on many subjects and it would be a real tragedy to lose him, for however brief a time.
I seek to stop the rising of the House before a commitment by the Government—either before the Easter recess, or we may be able to delay it until the recess on 5 May—to more flexible licensing hours and a commitment to action in the next Session of Parliament. The present law was designed to meet social and economic conditions during the first world war and shortly afterwards. That was in the days of the horse and cart: a

time of war, when work patterns were quite different from those of today. Public attitudes and desires were then very different, but we are now in the 1980s.
As time is short, I shall make two brief but important points in explaining why the time for change has come. First, there is now too much unemployment. More flexible licensing hours would lead to the creation of more jobs in, for example, the brewing industry, restaurants, public houses and hotels, and in the tourist industry generally. After all, if we had more reasonable licensing laws—foreigners and many of us see them as unreasonable—many more people would be attracted to this country. We do not need to gaze into any crystal balls, because we actually liberated the Scots in the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976. That Act introduced wide flexibility. It is interesting to note that as a result, one in three public houses has taken on extra staff, and 1,500 more people have been employed.
If the same pattern was followed in England and Wales, we could be reasonably sure that at least 15,000 new jobs would be created, together with a further 5,000 new jobs in restaurants. There would be increased capital investment, which would lead, in turn, to more equipment and services. As a result, more people would be employed in producing those services. In Scotland, the services have improved through, and since, that legislation. More food is provided in Scottish public houses and other tourist spots. There are better amenities too. Such facilities would provide, of course, more work in the rest of the United Kingdom.
Secondly, more flexible licensing hours would reduce drunkenness, and therefore crime. The figures published by the Scottish Office and the Home Office in 1984 show that, in Scotland, offences of drunkenness fell by 41 per cent. during the past five years for all age groups, compared with a fall of only 9 per cent. in England and Wales. For the younger age groups, the under-21s, where the greatest problem exists, offences of drunkenness in Scotland were down by 49 per cent.—almost a half—while in England they fell by only 12 per cent. Of course, that is not solely due to licensing changes. Many other factors were involved, including the slight depression in the economy in that part of the world, which cannot be gainsaid.
However, it is clear that, since the Licensing (Scotland) Act and the abolition of strict licensing controls in Scotland, there has been no deterioration in that great country's moral fibre, and no increase in crime. That is why many chief constables now support the view that flexible licensing hours would help to reduce public order problems. For a Government who are so concerned about public order and respect for the law, that must be a very telling point.
I will not delay the House, which is anxious for the next business, with my formula for reform. However, the Brewers' Society has proposed a very reasonable formula which retains complete control by the licensing justices, as everyone of good sense would wish. I call only for a commitment in principle. A commitment would be popular not just with brewers, licensees, managers, the British Tourist Authority and the English tourist board but with the people in this country. It would be in line wth the recommendation made by the Erroll committee 14 years ago. It would be in accord with modern social requirements. It would provide jobs and reduce crime. It would be consistent with the Conservative party's


principle of restoring freedom with responsibility where we can. Because of all this, it would find support in the whole House.
In the past, a very small number of hon. Members resisted such changes because they believed that any relaxation in the law would lead us into the arms of the demon drink himself. Governments have not had the courage to face up to that minority, and the law has not been changed. Now, at last, we have a Government full of conservative principles, good sense and courage. I call for a commitment that will put cheer into the glasses of most of us in this country this Easter adjournment, and especially of those who will be drinking cheerfully in the public houses and the businesses of Burton on Trent—the brewing centre of England.

Mr. Alan Williams: I thank the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) for the punctual conclusion to his speech. He spoke with a consuming and, I suspect, a consumer's passion. He seems to see flexible licensing rules as a social panacea. It seems that there is no problem facing this country that would not be resolved at a stroke and I am sure, therefore, that suggestion was noted with great interest by the Leader of the House. However, being of a mildly cynical disposition I am forced to note that we in the House already enjoy that privilege. The trouble is that I am not sure that our example convinces any of the doubters, inside or outside the House.
The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) spoke with an understandable passion that would have been shared by any hon. Member who found himself confronted by what the hon. Gentleman rightly described as the bombshell that he and his hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) and others had to face in the recent announcement. The easy energy source of the nuclear world is another panacea, but there is a tendency to overlook the inconvenient fact that the resulting waste is slightly different from coal ash or the residue from oil-burning. The hon. Member for Grantham outlined the problem of housing blight. Although a real problem, it is, sadly, probably one of the least of the problems besetting all our constituents.
Most hon. Members probably share the hon. Gentleman feelings, because we could all be in the same position. The hon. Gentleman made the point that it would be an abuse of logic for us to debate the special development order before debating the report of the Select Committee and hearing the Government's response to that report. I hope that the Leader of the House will feel able to accept that clear and overwhelming case.
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), with his innate capability for asking searching questions—I doubt whether there is any other hon. Member who researches his speeches in more detail than does he—referred to Mr. Jim Smith. He made sure of his facts. He not only checked his facts; he double-checked and treble-checked as many sources as possible. If I understood the reactions of hon. Members, there was a general feeling in the House that he has drawn attention yet again to a case where there has been real abuse.
When somebody has saved the Ministry of Defence between £420,000 and £1 million, it is something of an ingratitude for the Ministry to sit back and let the man lose his job. He is on the dole and he has been forced to sell

his house, but the Ministry refuses to offer any compensation to him, despite the fact that the Comptroller and Auditor General appears to have substantiated my hon. Friend's points. This is a positive deterrent to similar disclosures and therefore to similar savings of public money in the future. The whole House ought to want to ensure that this matter is properly investigated.
My hon. Friend also asked questions about past and present events relating to the strategic defence initiative. I have little doubt that in the time that is available to him the Leader of the House will ensure that all my hon. Friend's questions are fully and adequately answered.
My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) referred, rightly, to the fact that, when all our competitors realise the importance of education and training in this age of high technology, we are, unbelievably, cutting back on the resources that we are willing to devote to education and training. The Confederation of British Industry and industry generally are pleading with the Government and saying that there is a desperate shortage of skills, but in 1987–88 the Government intend to reduce the number of places in higher education by 9,000. They are also abandoning the Robbins principle.
The hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) who was in his place a moment ago but who has now left the Chamber, although he is normally punctilious about being in the House for wind-up speeches, referred to the establishment of a Committee for the tercentenary celebrations of the events of 1688. I noted that his adulation of the hereditary peerage savoured of the defence of illegitimate legitimacy. That marked his analysis of the development of the great families of this country.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), who apologises for the fact that he is unable to be here at this stage, raised an important point which had considerable support on all sides of the House—the fact that service men cannot sue for negligence. Most hon. Members will have had experience of cases of this kind. My right hon. Friend asked me to make it clear to the House that he was not referring to negligence during wartime. In many of his speeches, including the speech on his early-day motion, he made it clear that he was referring to non-combatant duties. He understands the difficulties that would arise in wartime. However, he rightly ridiculed the pathetic arguments that have been raised by the Ministry of Defence against the abolition of section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester) is aware of the very deep and genuine anxieties, on both sides of the House, about the future of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Bill. Would it not be quite wrong for us to approve this motion before hearing from the Leader of the House about the Government's intentions as to that Bill? My right hon. Friend appreciates that I did not hear most of the speech of the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester) on a matter that directly concerns me. As my right hon. Friend appreciates, I have been frequently in touch with the Secretary of State on the matter about which I have also tabled parliamentary questions. I saw the deputation from


Poundswick when they came to Parliament, but I understand that no Minister from the Department of Education and Science was able to do so.

Mr. Williams: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris). On the last point, it is normal courtesy in the House to notify an hon. Member if an issue is raised which relates to his constituency. That is obviously a matter for my right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Withington. That courtesy is normally extended by hon. Members to one another and I am sure it was an inadvertent oversight on the part of the hon. Member for Withington.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe raised the question of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Bill. There is grave disquiet in the country about the Government's intentions, especially among those organisations which represent disabled people. The Leader of the House should accept that we should see it as unacceptable for the Government not to announce what their intentions are at this stage in relation to the legislation. It is legislation which all those organisations which are involved with disabled people and those who have disabled people in their families, recognise as timely, humane and much needed.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) presented a case, with substantial evidence to support it, of the persecution of 35,000 Nepalese Christians. The House would always condemn intolerance, inhumanity and untruths of the type described, as we would condemn them anywhere they occur. The House looks with particular affection to Nepal because of the debt of gratitude that we have always felt and owed to the Gurkhas for the support they have given us in many campaigns for many years. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Mossley Hill for giving us the opportunity to learn about this case.
The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) touched on an infuriating situation—the inadequacy of disciplinary procedures within all the professions, but in this particular case in relation to the medical profession. He pinpointed the General Medical Council's limited powers of discipline. He pointed to the need for wider powers and for intermediary powers and sanctions to deal with a wider range of cases than can be dealt with at present. I share his sense of the preposterous with regard to the arguments that were advanced by the GMC against the private Member's Bill which is coming forward. The Council's argument was nonsense and the hon. Gentleman has done a service in focusing attention on it.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Mr. Silkin) opened the debate and dealt with the case of speech therapists. I am sure most Members have received representations on this issue and most of us recognise the dedication and ability of this specialist group within the National Health Service. We feel it is appalling that they are rewarded so inadequately for their critical and demanding work.
I am not sure whether I want this particular term to end. It has been a rather entertaining couple of weeks. The Government started back from Christmas still in the pantomime mood. Even in the weeks before we started back, they were leaking letters left, right and centre. We

had the entertaining back-stabbing camaraderie of the Cabinet room. We had resignations, protestations and denials. We had "hunt the letter" and all manner of amusing, entertaining festive games, here on the Floor of the House.
In keeping with this atmosphere of buffoonery we had the behaviour of the Secretary of State for Transport. He is always good at joining in a situation of that sort and he gives value in that context. Therefore, understandably, he also popped up halfway through the period to be found guilty in the courts on a third occasion of abusing the laws and imposing illegal tolls on those of us who must use the Severn bridge.
To ensure that no Government foot remained uninjured, we have had several weeks of the British Leyland saga—the Government's attempt to sell to the very American companies which since 1978 have contributed to nearly all the extra import penetration that our car industry has faced—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Motion for the Adjournment (Easter and Monday 5th May) and the Lords Amendments to the Local Government Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Malone.]

Orders of the Day — Adjournment (Easter and May Day)

Question again proposed.

Mr. Williams: I am sorry. I thought that I might have talked the debate out. [Interruption.] It is one of the few occasions on which a Whip has given me good advice. It may be symptomatic that it is not a Labour Whip.
We have had an entertaining period, which makes me recognise with some regret that we are about to go down for holidays. Nevertheless, I live in hope. One shining opportunity was raised by the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham). He raised hopes that these glorious, delightful moments that we have all shared in the weeks since Christmas will be revived when we come to the Shops Bill. He asked the Government what concessions they would make because it would be a matter of great difficulty for them. That makes me savour the prospect of a renewal of internal Government hostilities on the other side of our recess.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I should like to thank the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) for reminding us how the modest difficulties concerning Westland are already so far behind us that we could almost be in another Parliament, let alone in another year. All the other difficulties will be put in a wholly revealing context as the economy proceeds, the success of Fulham are consolidated in the local authority elections, and the Labour party consoles itself with the new great ideological inquests that it must have as, once again, Socialism is rejected by the country. However, it is not the purpose of this mini debate on the most innocuous resolution that we should take a few days off at Easter to engage in that sort of contentious politics. Rather, it is my privilege to respond briefly, but comprehensively, to the questions raised.
I shall start with the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Mr. Silkin), who explained the reasons for his absence. In all quarters of the House there will be great sympathy with the cause of speech therapists. I understand that they have now presented a claim which is with the management side, and there we must leave the matter. However, I assure him that I shall raise the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) drew general support for his anxiety about the effective working of the powers of the General Medical Council, and I shall report his views. Meanwhile, I am certain that he and many other hon. Members will be sympathetic to the efforts of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) with his private Member's Bill. My hon. Friend can judge its prospective fortunes when he examines the Order Paper.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) asked for a strategy for agriculture. I am certain that he is absolutely right in saying that the movement from a position of relative balance in food supplies and consumption to one which seems to be of endemic surplus in most major commodities calls for the most serious reconsideration of the strategy on which agricultural support is to proceed. I have also noted my hon. Friend's concern about the closure of Ministry of Defence establishments in his constituency. I will see that his anxieties have my reinforcement. I also notice that he hopes, in respect of the Shops Bill, for an open mind from the Government. Of course, my hon. Friend is asking for something that is perfectly obvious and it is not necessary for me to underline that.
The right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) raised an issue that is familiar to the House, thanks to his persistent advocacy. I will of course do as he requested and forward the report of this debate to the Secretary of State for Defence.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) spoke about the problems of gipsies. Although we talk about human rights in other countries, I wonder how we would relish the United Nations telling us how gipsy encampments should be dealt with in this country. However, I will leave that matter to one side. That is not a jocular point but one of very real substance and I will of course do as requested by my hon. Friend.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) is much concerned about the closure of the company in his constituency. I take note of what he says and of his belief that the companies legislation has been ignored. That is very serious, if it should be so demonstrated, and I am certain that my hon. Friend will he putting his evidence prima facie to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I will report to my right hon. Friend the points that have been made.
My hon. Friends the Members for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) and for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) argued with great force their feelings about the NIREX proposals and I understand their procedural point about the relationship between the special development order and the Select Committee report. I will take a sympathetic view of that and I may be in touch with my hon. Friends in due course.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), with no constituency interest, I am sure, but out of concern for the wider national good, argued for

more flexible drinking laws. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I both gave answers on that topic within the past 10 days or so. Although my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton lives in hope, as indeed everyone does, of the Government changing heart, I do not think that I can change that quickly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Sir J. Ridsdale) hopes that the Government can avoid pilotage legislation. I have a vested interest in any arrangement which can do just as well what is proposed through legislation and which takes the place of legislation. I will therefore look with utmost interest and sympathy at whatever my hon. Friend has to say further on that matter.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) argued about the AOR fleet replacement vessel—with great fluency and with, I thought, the most commendable ideological elasticity. I have never heard a Labour Member argue the case for a free enterprise concern confronted by subsidised competition from a collectivist competitor. However, the hon. Gentleman speaks for the entire north-east, irrespective of party affiliation and I will pass on his remarks.
I would like to return to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North about the growing use of crossbows. I have the utmost sympathy with my hon. Friend's point and I will gladly refer to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary the possibility of introducing a system of licensing. I have no doubt that that is a subject which could feature in private Members' legislation in the next Session of Parliament.
The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) argued with great persuasiveness, although I am not in any position to comment on the virtue of her argument. Everyone in the House, however, will be concerned about our national procurement policy, and the importance of national sources, not to be exclusive, but to have the dominant role in that situation. As requested, I will pass on the hon. Lady's comments to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. Indeed, I think that next time my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence might be at the Dispatch Box answering this debate rather than myself as he seemed to feature more prominently in the general requests than I did.
My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) talked about the tercentenary celebrations that are planned, and I will ensure that his views are passed on to the organising committee. I was delighted that he gave a first-class historical survey. Hon. Members should realise that those were the very events on which we have based our traditions and allegiance. He also mercifully suggested a banquet, which added a certain lift to the whole subject.
I liked the reference by my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge to the bishops. Was it not wonderful that, in those days, seven bishops were prepared to stand apart from the modus, convention and commitment to the fashions of the day and, were prepared, on a point of principle, to become the noncomformists, CT the non-jurors? I wanted to say that about bishops.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish again raised the serious subject of places in higher education. I shall, of course, draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.


The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) demonstrated a most formidable case on the strategic defence initiative. I could not even begin to answer a fraction of his points. I hope, therefore, that he will excuse me if I merely say that, whatever our views about defence policy, is it not important to consider the fact that the defence system may become so important and dominant that the policy serves the defence system but really the defence system should serve the policy? I welcome the hon. Gentleman's interest in this topic. I hope that he will remain the good, sound, radical, irritating Member of Parliament he has been these 20-odd years. Those attributes have given him a place of special affection, at least in my eyes, in the House.
I shall look at the points made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow about Jim Smith and shall get in touch with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. I understand the analogy the hon. Gentleman drew with the pit prop case in the 1960s and 1970s.

Mr. Dalyell: Will the right hon. Gentleman raise Jim Smith's case with the Treasury?.

Mr. Biffen: Yes, certainly.
I do not want to become involved in an internal dispute about Manchester, but the case to which my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr Silvester) drew attention—the so-called graffiti case—is not the property of Manchester; it belongs to a much wider national debate. I therefore see no reason why the House

should not have the opportunity to take a view on those matters. I shall pass on my hon. Friend's remarks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) referred to the treatment of Nepalese Christians. Of course, a country with a strong tradition of association with the Gurkhas would take a keen interest in Nepal as a friendly neighbouring country and would wish to exercise friendship and tolerance in its appreciation of that country's social customs. I shall refer my hon. Friend's points to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. I am sure that my hon. Friend would be the first to realise the strict limits to which one can push the question of the influence which can be successfully harnessed to the spirit of friendship. Beyond those limits, it becomes an irksome and ineffectual attempt to interfere in the social arrangements of other countries.
The important point of this evening's debate is the motion. Without it, we could not have this short break. We work longer hours than any other Parliament in western Europe, and I think that we earn and deserve the break.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House, at its rising on Thursday 27th March, do adjourn until Tuesday 8th April and, at its rising on Friday 2nd May, do adjourn until Tuesday 6th May; and the House shall not adjourn on Thursday 27th March until Mr. Speaker shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Acts which have been agreed upon by both Houses.

Orders of the Day — Local Government Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 2

PROHIBITION OF POLITICAL PUBLICITY

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 16, leave out
, or can reasonably be regarded as likely to affect,".

The Minister for Environment, Countryside and Local Government (Mr. William Waldegrave): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 3.

Mr. Waldegrave: I do not have much enthusiasm or pleasure in moving the motion. The amendments remove the concept of publicity material and publicity campaigns which
can reasonably be—likely to affect
public support for a party.
10.15 pm
The Government's view on this has been made quite clear throughout the debates in the House, in Committee and in another place. We believe that the removal of these words seriously weakens clause 2.
As the House will recall, prior to these amendments the prohibition of party political publicity fell into two parts. Local authorities were to be prohibited from publishing material which appears to be designed to affect public support for a political party and from publishing material which on a reasonable view—the Clapham omnibus test, if you like—would be regarded as likely to affect such public support.
The second limb of the test supplemented the first. One of the most disquieting developments that we have seen in recent years is the effort and resources which some councils are intent on devoting to the production of campaigning and publicity material which, while it may not apparently be designed to promote a political party, would nevertheless be so taken by any reasonable person.
The second leg of the prohibition in clause 2(1) tackled this problem. It follows therefore that the amendments made to clauses 2 and 4 of the Bill in another place are not acceptable to the Government.
However, the Government believe it essential for the Bill to receive the Royal Assent before 1 April to ensure both the enactment of the date for a rate provision for the next financial year and, given the limited time available before the Easter recess, to ensure that there is no question of unintentionally making some of the Bill's provisions retrospective.
For these reasons, we do not propose to invite the House to disagree with the Lords amendments to clause 2. The position, as my hon. Friends will be quick to point out, is far from satisfactory. It is true that the Bill as amended is a much needed improvement on the present position where there is no express prohibition on party political publicity. For this reason, the Government have decided that further legislation should be introduced next

session to restore the effects of the Lords amendments to clause 2. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced this recently.
Amendment No. 2 deals with a much smaller issue, the removal of the word "particular". This again we regret. It was a common-sensical definition which seemed to make sense, but I am not going to ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to reverse the Lords amendment. We will have to return to this in the autumn. I have to urge my hon. Friends, although I know that this is not palatable to them—and I can tell them it is not palatable to me either—to accept half a loaf in order to get something on the statute book, and in due course we will have to return to the matter.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I have a submission from the National Union of Journalists, Forth valley branch, saying that it is concerned about the proposed Local Government Bill which is currently progressing through Parliament. It says:
We feel that the Bill could seriously affect information being given to the press by local authorities. We would therefore offer our support to any moves against the Bill which you may be considering.
That is signed by Tim Harper, secretary of the Forth valley journalists.
For the sake of time, I put it in question form. Do local papers have anything to fear in their relations with local authorities in the gaining of information? It may make it easier if the Minister were to interrupt.

Mr. Waldegrave: I am delighted to do so. I believe that I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks. No newspaper has anything to fear from this matter. I believe that the worries—I understand them because this is a sensitive area in which to be legislating—are ill-founded.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: I rise with some regret because I was looking forward to seeing the Bill go forward unamended. I believed very much in the spirit of the Bill and that we were going to cane those Labour authorities which were wasting ratepayers' money throughout the country. I had hoped very much that the Bill would do that.
It depressed me when I read yesterday's Leicecter Mercury dated 24 march, which said:
Thank you. The Local Government Bill, which gags Local Councils freedom of speech is likely to become law. However, Leicester City Council and Leicester people have played an important part in securing major amendments. We would like to thank those in Leicester who joined the Council's campaign to defend local democracy—Voluntary groups, residents associations and all members of the public who wrote or phoned us to express their support.
It had the audacity to say:
Leicester City Council … trying to work for you.
Ratepayers living in Leicester have to pay for that propaganda promoting the Labour party. I object to that. I had hoped that the Bill would stop people from printing party political propaganda on the rates. I understand the position in which my hon. Friend the Minister finds himself. Because he has to get the Bill through by 1 April, because the House of Lords is not sitting much longer and because it is difficult to get their Lordships all into the right Lobby more than four times a year, we are faced with material which, if it is designed carefully, will be published on the rates to persuade people in Leicester to support the Labour party. The amendment is a severe letdown to my constituents.
On 19 June 1985 the Labour party in Leicester introduced a political unit whose purpose was basically to monitor the way in which Conservative Members of Parliament reacted in the city. It was also to allow £137,000 to be spent on stopping Leicester from being rate capped. But Leicester was rate capped, so our money was wasted. The political unit was to increase
public awareness of the need for the City Council to regain powers such as control of education and social services lost to it in the 1974 local government reorganisation.
Why should we have to pay to have such propaganda shoved up our noses? I object to it. I object, too, to the equality unit which the city council established which at a cost of £20,000 per annum tells people why it is good to have the Labour party running the local authority. The council set up a racial awareness course costing £37,000 initially and £28,000 per annum. What has that to do with the city of Leicester? The council established creche facilities at £41,900, a trade union officer at £10,000 a year, an anti rate-capping unit at £150,000, a contract compliance unit to ensure that contracts had nothing to do with the South African Government and a public relations unit which was supposed to work for us but which works instead for people who do not pay rates. Those who fund the rates and who put money into the city do not have a voice, whereas those who do not pay have.

Mr. Eric Forth: Has my hon. Friend made any calculation of either the number of additional houses which could have been built or the number of young people who could have been trained if all that money had not been wasted by the local authority in the way that he described but had been spent in socially helpful and useful ways?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman goes down that road he will be out of order. He must stick strictly to the amendments before the House.

Mr. Bruinvels: The essence of my hon. Friend's intervention is that the council was wasting ratepayers' money on promoting the Labour party rather than helping the people who live in the city and who have to pick up the tab at the end of the year. Many houses could have been repaired with those exorbitant, wasted funds, yet the council deliberately chose to keep 12,000 houses throughout the county unoccupied so that it could claim there was a housing crisis in the city of Leicester. That was a dereliction of duty. The city council was elected to give value for money. It was not a Conservative council, so I suppose it did not try to give value for money, because it was spending money that did not belong to it.
Only last week, for instance, the Trades Unions Congress women's conference came to Leicester. Instead of the local authority charging the TUC £1,250 for hosting the conference, it gave the facilities free because it was its Labour party friends from London who were coming to Leicester. If any other organisation, including the ex-service men of Leicester, had tried to hire the De Montfort Hall, it would have had to pay. Why is the city council using such propaganda? Why are the Government doing away with the appropriate clause in the Bill? If some people in Leicester have a different view from that expressed by the city council, why should it not be promoted?
The council is wasting money, with the latest edition of Leicester Link, promoting Labour party propaganda and spending about £3,000 on promoting what the Labour group on Leicester council feels about Nelson Mandela. Why should the ratepayers, the citizens of Leicester, have to pay £3,000 to be told what the city council reads and feels about the struggle—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a Second Reading speech on the principles of the Bill. I invite him to direct his attention to the narrow provisions of the amendment and to speak to that.

Mr. Bruinvels: The narrow part is that political propaganda on the rates is to be allowed, and I object to that. We are trying to get that clause reinserted in the Bill. I and a number of my hon. Friends feel let down by the fact that political propaganda is to be allowed to continue.

Dr. John Marek: The hon. Gentleman may have newspapers coloured red. I have here the Ratepayer Reporter for Westminster, and it is coloured blue. It is full of writings by Lady Porter and has pictures of the Secretary of State for the Environment. There are two sides to this argument.

Mr. Bruinvels: It does not matter which party puts out the propaganda, it should not be allowed, and I object to paying for it. Wherever it happens, the residents are right to call in the district auditor to look at the way in which propaganda is put out. That is why we need this clause and do not need to have the Lords amendment thrust upon us, because we cannot get a large number of their Lordships together in another place to sort out this amendment. That is a tragedy for citizens, who rightly feel abused.
When I listened to the Minister of State and the Secretary of State for the Environment, I believed that we could hope to save money for the citizens of Leicester and for the citizens in other local authorities. I thought that the Minister had made himself clear when the Bill was introduced that we were to stop this kind of propaganda on the rates. In Leicester this year the rates bill has gone up by 80 per cent. That is killing jobs and denying businesses the opportunity to expand. The Labour party says, "We are doing this to help you." Who is it helping? Business is at a trickle, a number of people have no chance of promotion and we are in a nasty situation. It is a rates blow, and I am worried about that.
Leicester city council spent £20,000 telling me and other residents that it was working for us. That seems quite incredible and out of line with what we want to see—proper control of our rates. It is propaganda. We pay the bill, but it appears from what my hon. Friend has said that we will have no say. I am bitterly disappointed. Propaganda is rife in Leicester. My constituency is talked about and I am warned on the back of the Leicester Link of February 1986 about what will happen if an international airport at Evington is allowed. There is also advertising in the national papers. That is a scare tactic by the Labour council, but we have to pick up the bill. Any expense of this sort is totally irresponsible.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying from the amendment. If he does not stick closely to the words of the amendment and what it means, he will have to resume his seat.

Mr. Bruinvels: We on the Government side are trying to stop propaganda from being put on the rates.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must direct himself to the Lords amendment that has been tabled.

Mr. Bruinvels: It reads:
or can reasonably be regarded as likely to affect,
We are talking about the Bill and about propaganda. I want to address the matter of the £150,000 that is being spent campaigning against rate capping. In that campaign the Labour party says, "We are working for you." The Labour party spent that money after the council was rate capped, and that was a disastrous dereliction of duty by the city council. Having spent £150,000 to try to stop the council from being rate capped, even though the citizens of Leicester were crying out to he rate capped, it was not possible—despite the amendments that I want to see inserted—for the council to be rate capped.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: The amendment changes the test so that it will be possible for local authorities to indulge in political propaganda which, while not promoting a party, may have that effect on the electorate.

Mr. Bruinvels: Exactly, and that is why last Sunday in the city of Leicester there took place a ceremony at which the Welford road recreation ground was renamed Nelson Mandela park. Throughout the area the Labour party had on display stickers promoting the change, and we must pick up the bill, amounting to £13,650—more waste of the citizens' rates.
It is clear that all the campaigns—be they on behalf of gays, CND, the prevention of terrorism or—[Interruption.] against the police, will be allowed, and that is a tragedy for my constituents. Similarly, the city council is trying to establish a twinning arrangement with Nicaragua, claiming that the Labour party there has strong international links with the city council. Why should we citizens have to pay £7,000—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I warn the hon. Gentleman that I shall have to ask him to resume his seat unless he relates his remarks to the amendment.

Mr. Bruinvels: The amendment weakens the Bill, and that worries me.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not discussing the Bill. The hon. Gentleman had better resume his seat. Mr. Benyon.

Mr.W.Benyon: My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) is wrong in thinking that the amendment removes clause 2 in its entirety. It simply ensures that the provision corresponds more closely to the recommendations of the Widdicombe inquiry. It is essential in these matters to proceed slowly and with consensus, or we will get it wrong.
The Lords are simply asking us to try this out and see what happens, and we should take their advice. I believe, from my experience in local government, that clause 3, which the Lords have left untouched, is the important provision.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would you please explain to me what is going on?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I warned the hon. Gentleman several times, after which I directed him to resume his seat.

Mr. Benyon: I urge hon. Members to agree with the Lords in this proposal.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: My hon. Friend referred to his experience in local government. Did he serve on an authority on which militant Left-wing councillors were spending ratepayers' money trying to unseat Conservative Members of Parliament?

Mr. Benyon: I live in the area of a very Left-wing Labour authority. Through my letter box comes the sort of material to which my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East referred. The amended clause will prevent that material from appearing in that way. But if I am wrong, there will be an opportunity to change the measure. To go against the recommendations of the Widdicombe inquiry would be counter-productive in the present situation. We must proceed slowly, and if what is proposed turns out to be wrong, we can then have another go at it, as the Minister explained.

Sir Peter Blaker: I support the objective of the Bill in preventing local authorities from abusing the system by indulging in political propaganda on the rates.
I should like the Minister to explain, when he replies to what I hope will be a brief debate, why he accepts the Lords amendment with reluctance. I represent, as hon. Members will know, a town that specialises in the holiday trade. The local authority has expressed great concern about the original wording of the clause. My hon. Friend will know that it was true historically that local authorities specialising in tourism have done much to support the infrastructure of tourism. They have built swimming pools, sea defences and other physical manifestations of the tourist trade. Local authorities have also supported tourism in their areas—I believe this is true throughout the United Kingdom—by publicity for the tourist attractions of their towns.
This aspect of the Bill has caused anxiety to the Blackpool council and, as my hon. Friend will know, much more widely among the local authority associations. They have taken the view that the original clause went too wide and was in danger of limiting their ability to publicise the tourist attractions of a town.
Perhaps my hon. Friend will explain on winding-up, why he believes that this concern, which is widely shared by the holiday towns, is misplaced. That is the inference of what he says. Does he think it necessary to restore the clause later in this Session? Can he give an assurance that, if it is done, local authorities specialising in tourism will not be handicapped in publicising their attractions?

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I doubt whether anyone would question my credentials concerning my experience and knowledge of Left-wing councils.
My hon. Friend is in a very difficult position in having in his Bill, which has come back to us from another place, words placed in by former permanent civil servants, who are, there, usually out of touch with reality. We have to be in touch with reality. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes (Mr. Benyon) said that he


wished to proceed by consensus, I can think of nothing worse than consensus. It is usually the lowest common denominator.
I have listened carefully to what was said by the Minister. He gave one of the clearest undertakings I have heard at this stage of a parliamentary Session that we will, rather than may, have to return to this matter in the next Session with a further Bill. I understand this issue well. I have been under attack in my constituency for a long time, from this sort of political rubbish. Those hon. Members on both sides of the House who have served in local government know that neither major political party would have indulged in it six years ago, let alone 10 or 20 years ago. We are faced with it now.
We must rely on two things. First, we must rely on a clearly growing anxiety among responsible people in all three major political parties. Although it may be said that publication of various muck sheets may be of assistance to the Labour party, I doubt whether the Labour party wants to see this sort of publication, which is gradually displacing moderate councillors by militant councillors. I do not believe that the Labour party wants this, although it may be too scared to say so publicly.
We need to act in a realistic and practical fashion. One would have wished to see the Widdicombe report published in full much more swiftly. "Mark 1" of Widdicombe, in the majority report. It sets out the real problem, saying that it is not yet certain how it should recommend that publication be dealt with.

Mr. Christopher Hawkins: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend, but why is it in order for him to talk about the weakening effect of the amendment and for my hon. Friend the Minister to say that he regrets that the amendment weakens the original intention of the Bill when it is not in order for my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) to make the same point?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a matter for the Chair. The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) was really making a Second Reading speech and not applying himself to the exact terms of the amendment.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I was specifically talking about amendment No. 2, leaving out the word "particular". I could talk to all three amendments, but it is convenient to save time and talk to one. Obviously, I could speak for longer, but I shall resist the temptation.
It was the majority report of the Widdicombe committee that led to the Bill and the amendments before us. I ignore for this purpose the minority report which, frankly, was not even worth the paper that it was printed on. I am glad that no one has referred much to that.
I hope that when my hon. Friend the Minister replies he will make it clear that one of the main reasons that he adduced for not asking us to reverse the amendments was, first, the retrospection issue, and secondly, the pledge that he gave that further legislation will cover the real anxieties—I do not need to stress that—that all of us have. What is proposed tonight will not be detrimental to democracy provided that we return to it in the next Session.
I am prepared to accept what my hon. Friend the Minister has said.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Has not one element been left out? Should not my hon. Friend have been saying to the House that unless we agree to the amendments tonight we shall not get the Bill by 1 April? Failure to do that means that my hon. Friend the Minister cannot keep his promise to us and do what we all want this evening—to stop all the nonsense of political propaganda. Should not we soon end our speeches tonight and allow the Bill to go through so that my hon. Friend the Minister can keep his pledge and do what we all want in the next Session?

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I find it difficult to agree with my hon. Friend completely. Will it suffice if I say that I too wish to see the Bill on the statute book as rapidly as possible?

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I had the pleasure of serving on the Committee which considered the Bill and, along with a number of colleagues, I spent most of my time arguing that the Bill was far too weak. It was something of an unpleasant surprise to discover that for technical reasons we are placed in a position tonight where we have to accept these ridiculous amendments from the other place which will fillet the Bill and weaken it in a dramatic manner.
It seems to me that the nub of amendment No. 1, which limits the ban on political material to material which appears to be designed to affect support for a political party, thereby excluding the wider test of material which can be regarded as likely to affect public support for a political party, neuters the Bill.
I say to those colleagues who believe that we still have a Bill which is helpful in the period until we have another, that certainly on my reading of the Bill it would allow any local authority to continue supporting the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. It will allow local councils to provide financial support for political pressure groups provided the money has not been earmarked for specifically political purposes. It will allow indirect funding of left-wing newspapers like Labour Weekly and New Socialist through advertising.
I know that hon. Gentlemen are in favour of public funds being used to help the Labour party, but those of us who believe in democracy and a free society are totally opposed to that.

Mr. Jack Straw: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not want to mislead the House. He knows very well that he can make a better argument than the one he is putting forward now. He knows very well that it is on record on many occasions that the Labour party is not in favour of using ratepayers' money to support the Labour party or any other party. What is more, exactly that phrase was used in the Labour party's official evidence to the Widdicombe committee of inquiry.
Could the hon. Gentleman explain what he means by the suggestion that it is somehow the intention of local councils indirectly to support papers like Labour Weekly and New Socialist?. That is not the purpose of those councils.

Mr. Forsyth: It seems that the Labour party's policy on this matter is rather like its policy on council housing—it says one thing in public and does another in practice.

Mr. Kevin Barron: Answer the question.

Mr. Forsyth: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will endeavour to answer the question. If hon. Gentlemen are opposed to the use of public money to support political campaigns, for political purposes, why do they not vote against these Lords amendments tonight? The effect of these amendments is to allow local authorities to do that. I know that the Labour party has a problem in controlling some of its more extreme councils, which are busily using the loopholes in the law to carry out practices which I am delighted to hear the Opposition Front Bench condemning here tonight.

Mr. Barron: The hon. Gentleman has been asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) to give a specific answer. He mentioned Labour Weekly and said that local councils supported it. Could he tell us exactly how?

Mr. Forsyth: If the hon. Gentleman wants me to answer the question of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) he should not interrupt me in the middle of doing so. The situation with regard to Labour Weekly is this. Certain councils, such as my own, Stirling, and many others advertise consistently in Labour Weekly posts for officers; they receive no replies and they have been consistently criticised by district auditors. Colleagues are mentioning other councils—Manchester, Walsall, Sheffield. No doubt the hon. Gentleman can collect the names afterwards. I fear that I may be straying from the purpose of the amendment if I continue to list the many Labour councils that are doing this.
If the hon. Gentleman is in any doubt about the danger in these amendments and if he believes that the Lords amendments which we are being asked to consider are not dangerous, I refer him to an advertisement which appeared in Marxism Today by an organisation called "Union Communications", saying that it can be of help to local authorities. Anyone inquiring gets a letter back from one of the directors which says:
You ask about Union Communications. Basically we are a small team of professional journalists PR and design people who have come together to offer the trade unions and Labour local authorities a communications service that beats anything the Tories can lay hands to.
We believe we are succeeding.
We have not worked as yet with many CLPs, though we would be happy to do so, except in so far as when we work for a local authority we invariably get involved with the CLP and help their own PR work.
We have shown Basildon Council, for instance, how to put 10 per cent. on the Labour vote. Inevitably the CLP was involved and we had to show them what to do.
The point about this and other activities in the Labour party is that it is possible to carry on propaganda activities that can influence and improve the Labour vote without producing material that can be shown to be deliberately designed for that purpose. The amendment will weaken the test that would have caught such activities, and thereby open the floodgates to what the hon. Member for Blackburn has condemned, but which is rife within his party. Although Opposition leaders may condemn such activities, they are incapable of controlling the party. The Bill is needed in its original form to help them, and save them from their extremists.

Mr. Simon Hughes: So far, the hon. Gentleman has concentrated all his remarks

on the activities of Labour boroughs. There has already been an intervention about today's release to many hon. Members living this side of the river—a publication from the Tory-controlled City of Westminster. Does he believe that a publication that on its front page says "Rates down, services up" and inside speaks about the savings from the abolition of the GLC, which are arguable in the light of recent figures, is designed as likely to affect political support for the Conservative-run City of Westminster council? He should not criticise one party without admitting that his party is equally guilty.

Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but, as is always the case with his party, he wants to have it all ways. If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about material that he says could be regarded as likely to affect public support of a political party, why is the hon. Gentleman supporting the Lords amendment? It would have the affect of removing that provision from the Bill, so allowing material produced by any council, whether Tory or Labour, to be designed to affect that. I have not seen the publication, so I shall not make an instant judgment, but it is extraordinary for the hon. Member to be complaining about something that in Committee he consistently did everything in his power to prevent being included in the Bill.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: I have had the chance to study the document to which the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) referred, and I agree with the hon. Member. Is this not an illustration of the point that my hon. Friend is trying to get across? If the Labour party were allowed to get away with producing such material, the inevitable consequence would be that Conservative and alliance authorities would be forced to follow suit, and that is the dangerous thing about having such an amendment to the Bill.

Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It was evident in Committee that we did not approach the matter from a partisan point of view, but from a desire to have the best practice in local government, so that political parties did not use public money to their own advantage.
I have a leaflet called "Working for Local People". The hon. Member for Blackburn seems keen to have examples, and I am keen to provide them for him. The leaflet is produced by Hackney borough council and is being widely distributed in the borough six weeks before the local elections. There is nothing in here that suggests that it is deliberately promoting the Labour party. However, its timing and intent are obvious. It is intended to influence the results of the local government elections.

Mr. Simon Hughes: rose—

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman will no doubt have an opportunity to make his speech against the amendments. Let me make mine.
This type of propaganda material, which has been produced by the Labour party in Hackney in order to influence the results of the local authority elections, would not be caught by the Bill as amended by the House of Lords. When the Bill left this House, it would have been caught because it would have been caught by the fact that it was likely to affect the voting intentions of the electorate.
The key issue in judging whether material is party political is its effect on the people, not the motive or


intention of the publisher. The intention is quite irrelevant. I have to say to my hon. Friend the Minister that I very much regret that we are in a position tonight where we are being asked not to reject the amendments.
I understand that there is a timing problem, that the Bill as it stands is required to come into effect on 1 April and that it will not be possible to change that, because it is not within the rules of order for us to do that in the House. Why could we not have had a one clause Bill to amend the Bill itself and change the date on which it came into effect? How is it possible for there to be such rank incompetence in the Department of the Environment so that we can spend hours and hours arguing for this in Committee, use considerable effort making the case for it in our constituencies, and at the end be robbed of the impact of it? I do not blame my hon. Friends at the Department of the Environment, but I hope that some heads will be rolling in the Department because the advice that the Minister has been given is thoroughly inadequate.
One of the curiosities is that the noble Lord Elton in another place reminded the House of the procedural difficulties and of the fact that it would not be possible for there to be amendments other than those relating to Lords amendments which have been made in the House of Commons. Therefore, it is clear that Ministers were aware of the procedural difficulties, but on the technical point of amending the relevant clause that sets the date they were left badly advised. I think that that is most unfortunate.
I welcome the assurance of my hon. Friend the Minister that we will get a Bill in the next Session to put matters right. I hope that not only will the effects of the clauses be restored but that we will also see tougher action to deal with some of the abuses which would certainly have not been covered by the Bill in the first place. I also hope, as we are obviously going to have a local government jamboree Bill, that he will take the opportunity of dealing with unfair contract terms and with the problems of competitive tendering.

Mr. William Cash: I should like to speak briefly and simply say that I wish that hon. Members would accept the Lords amendments. I do not think that the words which are being proposed to be left out make the slightest difference to the wording of the Bill. At the end of the day, there is a whole line of House of Lords' cases which clearly show that when the judges are asked to accept whether a matter is political they make up their minds on the particular facts on that particular occasion and these words will not make the slightest difference to that.
I do not think that anybody has fought harder than myself with regard to surcharge disqualification, political expenditure and so on but I urge the House to accept the amendments because they do not make any difference one way or another.

11 pm

Mr. Allen McKay: That is exactly the point that I was making. We have had a lot of debate about the effect of the amendments rather than the amendments themselves. Hon. Members seem to be getting hot under the collar, but I cannot see why we should be so arrogant as to believe that people are

dunderheads and cannot see through anything that local authorities may be doing, or that the effect will not show up in the ballot box.
The problem is that many Government Members are seeking to put local government in a straitjacket. They forget that local government is the result of the democratic process, and they seek to condemn it. Without the amendment, the subsection reads:
A local authority shall not publish any material which, in whole or in part, appears to be designed to affect … public support for a political party.
That is a straightforward subsection that will do exactly what people say that the Bill should do. But with the addition of the words:
or can reasonably be regarded as likely to affect,
we enter another arena. The matter would end up in court time and time again. Who will interpret "reasonably"
regarded as likely to affect"?
Who will make the decision? Will it be the Minister? If so, the decision will be politically one-sided. Will it be the courts? The Bill will do no more than provide a livelihood for the lawyers who will discuss the matter in court. In accepting the Lords amendment we will not alter the intention that lies behind the Bill, and I see no reason why it should not be accepted.

Mr. Bill Walker: I welcome the notice that my hon. Friend gave, in addressing the Lords amendment, that he will bring another Bill back in the autumn. As he will have guessed, my hon. Friends and I are not in agreement with the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay). Anyone who believes that the deletion of the words will have no impact on the likely outcome is not putting his mind to the analogy with the law of libel, in which it is not the apparent design behind what a man says that counts but the effect. That is regularly judged in the courts, and that could well be the case if we accept the amendment.

Mr. Simon Hughes: In a libel case, a jury decides. In this case, the decision will not be made by a jury.

Mr. Walker: I am not a lawyer, but lawyers make a living out of finding out what the problems are, what the words mean and what Parliament intended—

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend need not be unduly intimidated by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). He has Lord Denning on his side.

Mr. Walker: I was not aware of that. I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention.
I have sometimes had the opportunity to sit in courts and listen to cases that were of interest to me. One thing that has become clear to me is that lawyers do very well by picking on words, defining their meaning and asserting what was intended by Parliament when Parliament inserted the words. The spirit of the law is considered as well as the letter of the law. The spirit of the law, when the Bill left this House, was, I believe, very clear. The Lords have substantially altered the spirit of the law, and we are very concerned. There will still be evidence of propaganda material being produced by authorities of one political colour or another, but that is not what matters. What matters is that this House had determined that public money should not be used in this way. The authorities that largely exploited this activity were Labour authorities. Equally, it is true that authorities of other political colours,


some of which were Conservative authorities, saw what was going on elsewhere and said, "This is unfair. That is not the way in which we expect the law to be enforced, or money to be spent, but if others are doing it and getting away with and making it work effectively to their advantage, we should be fools not to follow their example. If that is how the law stands, it is right to do so."
It is all very well for Members of the Conservative party to say that public funds should not be used for purposes of that kind when that does not happen in neighbouring councils, but Dundee district council, which is adjacent to my local authority, constantly used public funds before 1979 in ways that the Government of the day, either Conservative or Labour, did not intend.
My right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench have admitted that if these amendments are accepted the Bill will be substantially weakened. Therefore I welcome the fact that they say that they will come back to this matter. For that reason I shall not make the long speech that I had intended to make, although some of my hon. Friends still may say that I should do so. I welcome the assurance of my right hon. and hon. Friends that this will happen, and I know that it will happen.

Mr. Derek Spencer: No amount of ministerial promises will save me one penny on my rates bill in the city of Leicester. We have arrived at a lamentable state of affairs, this should not have happened. In 1835 the Royal Commission on municipal corportations referred to the corporation of Lecester and said:
During the election of 1826 the Corporation of Leicester expended £10,000 to secure the success of a political partisan.
From 1826 to 1986, as we are on the brink of the city council elections, the wheel has turned full circle. What progress have we made?
The Royal Commission of 1835 said:
There prevails amongst the inhabitants of the incorporated towns a general dissatisfaction with their municipal institutions … a discontent under the burthens of local taxation, while revenues that ought to be applied to the public advantage are diverted from their legitimate use … and squandered.
That was in 1835. It is still going on now, and it will continue to go on. Please, let us do something effective about it.

Mr. George Park: I understand the frustration on the Conservative Benches. Over the years they have become accustomed, with their huge majority, to pushing all sorts of crazy schemes through this House, so when there is a hiccup they become very frustrated. When they say that they are concerned about what they generally describe as "propaganda", what they may really be afraid of is that if responsible local authorities are not denied the opportunity to explain to their electors why the rates are at a certain level, the reasons advanced by those local authorities may register with the voters and to that extent may influence the outcome of elections.
Conservative Members of Parliament cannot have their cake and eat it. If they ask local authorities to explain why they are spending a certain amount of money, they should allow those authorities to explain the situation from their point of view. It seems that Conservative Members consider that anything that comes from a local authority, especially if it is a Labour one, must be classed a propaganda, but councils concerned, as all responsible people are, that there should not be any waste of money, whether it is in local or in national Government.
Conservative Members do not realise that in pursuing the original content of the Bill, despite what their Minister has said to them, they may well blunder into a quagmire of lawyers' expenses which will involve them in spending money in far greater quantities than the amounts about which they are complaining now.

Mr. Michael Brown: The House will be relieved to know that I do not intend to detain it for long. I have studied the Bill and I cannot see any references to radioactive waste, therefore, I shall be able to contain my remarks to a few minutes.
I recognise the difficulty which faces the Minister, and I appreciate the assurances he has given for the future. He still has work to do. The Minister will have heard the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) in which he suggested that the words contained in Lords amendment No. 1, which they wish to delete from the Bill, did not matter one way or the other.
In the Standing Committee, of which I was a member, the Minister went to great lengths to show that those words are important and significant. Committee colleagues and I tabled amendments because we did not think that the original Bill went far enough, but my hon. Friend the Minister reassured us. We agreed with the Bill as originally drafted before it was emasculated by the other place.
The Minister stressed that the words in the Lords amendment
or can reasonably be regarded as likely to affect,
were important. It is important for the House to have had an assurance from the Minister that we will have the opportunity in the next Session—presumably by means of another Bill—to have the words which may be deleted put back. Thus, the effect which the Minister wished to achieve with regard to local authority wastage and political propaganda would be achieved.
There is a problem for my own local authority with regard to the Bill as it will go onto the statute book. I am afraid I do have to refer to a constituency issue. The Humberside county council, a hung county council, is opposed to the possible special development order which may be presented by the Minister to dispose of nuclear waste in the area. Presently, the county council is distributing a newspaper to all households in the county of Humberside setting out its opposition to the proposal.
If the Bill were to go through without the Lords amendment, I would be able to say to my county council that it passes the test and that no Department of the Environment Minister can accuse it of wasting ratepayers money for political purposes designed to affect a political party. I am worried that if the Lords amendment is agreed to and the Bill then receives Royal Assent the county council officials—

Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: The hon. Member says that the newspaper would not be regarded as in any way affecting a political party. That might be true in Humberside, but it would not be true in parliamentary elections where there were parties for and against a matter in and outside the Chamber. The newspaper would be just as likely to affect parliamentary as well as local elections, so would then fall foul of the Bill.

Mr. Brown: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I am dealing with the Bill as it will affect


the county of Humberside in the coming weeks and months. At this moment county council advisers are wondering where they will stand regarding the campaign, which all three parties want to wage and which has the support of ratepayers who wish their rates to be used for it, as a result of the Bill reaching the statute book in the form envisaged by the other place. I regret that we are invited to agree to the deletion of those words. I had hoped that they could be used as a complete defence of the Labour-controlled council. I have made it clear that in my view the council has clearly passed the test of the Bill as it was originally drafted. I am absolutely convinced that it will pass the test even if we agree to the Lords' amendment, but its advisers are in a quandary about their advice in the light of the Lords' amendment. I deeply regret that the Government have found it necessary, for reasons that I wholly understand, to give way to the other place.
We should deliberate for a few moments on the wider constitutional issues which arise from this little incident. We are accountable to our electors, and have heard the cry from all political parties in the House down the decades, certainly throughout this century, that the other place must give way ultimately to the democratic wishes of this House. It appears that we are in grave danger—Opposition Members, in particularly, will agree—of getting ourselves into a constitutional mess, if increasingly we accept amendments from the other place which fall foul of the democratic process.
I do not need to detain the House for much longer. I regret that we have found ourselves in this position. I hope that the Government have learnt some lessons from this sorry essay, and that we can look forward to a strong Bill next year which will receive the full support of the majority of hon. Members in this House and will be well regarded in the other place.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I never thought to hear a Tory complain that the Lords were passing amendments. The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr.Brown) should refresh himself about the availability of measures introduced by Liberal Governments, if he feels that amendments should be overturned or Parliament dealt with.
More pertinent to the amendment, I do not follow the hon. Gentleman's key point about Humberside county council, that there is a genuine and widely felt fear that the provisions may affect local authorities in which members from all political parties and no political party wish to combine to campaign on a particular issue. It is the hon. Gentleman's contention that the campaign about nuclear waste which the council is instituting will be made more difficult to sustain under the Bill with the Lords amendment than without it. I cannot understand the force of his argument. It seems manifest from the way in which the decision was reached that it could not be claimed that the material that the council was producing was designed to affect public support for a political party. However, it could reasonably be regarded by someone else as designed to do so, and it is on that distinction that the Lords' amendment turns. The exclusion by the Lords of those words appears to make it easier for Humberside to sustain its case as it in no way sets out to support a particular political party and was fighting a campaign which all

parties on the council agreed upon. Any reasonable man, like my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft), with characteristic reasonableness might conclude that it would affect support for a political party. However, if that is a test, I do not think that the council in the constituency of the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes would suffer that difficulty and he should therefore be supporting the Lords amendment.
I was amazed that Conservative Members should seek to claim as some did, that the indulgence of Conservative-controlled councils in measures which would be caught by this clause even in its amended form was some recent, sudden response to the things that we have seen Labour-controlled councils do. I was grateful to the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) who revealed how far back that kind of corruption in local government goes.
I do not believe that hon. Members can reasonably claim that the Westminster city council, provoked by the imminent fear of overturn, either by the alliance or the Labour party at the next municipal elections, has produced and sent out a news sheet which many hon. Members received this morning, a copy of which I have brought into the Chamber, called the "Ratepayer Reporter". This is full of pictures not of the Lord Mayor, an independent figure, but of the political leader of the council, Lady Porter, pictured in several places with the Secretary of State cutting the red tape. The paper is full of claims that the abolition of the GLC will result in cost savings for the ratepayers in the city of Westminster.

Mr. Dickens: rose—

Mr. Beith: I will not give way. That point of view is at least argued in the House, and the "Ratepayer Reporter" continues to claim such delights for the people of Westminster as the provision of a new jaccuzzi and steam bath in the Seymour leisure centre.

Mr. Roland Boyes: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because I pay high rates in Westminster and I must say that the "Ratepayer Reporter" does not compare in any way with papers put out by Labour-controlled authorities in the north-east. It is much more costly to produce, contains more political pictures and pictures of Ministers, but above all, it reports on its back page information about pets, firework displays and councillors running around in scanty clothes for charitable purposes—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must relate his remarks to the amendment. We must get back to the amendment.

Mr. Beith: The point that I want to put to the Minister is that I am satisfied, although I do not know whether he is, that this news sheet put out by the city of Westminster would fail the test with the Lords amendment included in the Bill. That is the crucial point for hon. Members to realise.

Mr. Dickens: rose—

Mr. Beith: That news sheet is designed to affect public support for a political party. It does not depend for its offence against the provisions of the Bill on someone reasonably regarding it as likely to affect support for a political party. It is clearly intended to affect support for a political party. That is not a new phenomenon in the city of Westminster, as it has been producing material like this—

Mr. Dickens: Will the hon. Member give way?

Mr. Beith: No. I am trying to address an important point to the Minister. I would like the Minister to say whether he feels that the wording of the Lords amendment bringing in the rest whether a reasonable man would regard it as likely to affect support is necessary to catch the "Ratepayer Reporter" within the provisions of the Bill. I am satisfied that, with the Lords amendment, the leaflet will be a caught but it must surely bring home to the Minister the complications that he has created by the wording of the clause. He must be satisfied that the words that the Lords want to remove are not necessary in order to treat such documents as condemned by the Bill.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I have lived in Westminister for 20 years and have never before seen a paper such as the one to which the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) referred. It is the first and, I suspect, the last of its kind. The hon. Gentleman should have taken the time to read The Londoner, which was published by the GLC at £750,000 a shot—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must relate his remarks to the amendment.

Mr. Greenway: The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed should have react The Londoner, which is a permitted publication and which will continue to be one if the Lords amendments are carried, and he would then have shared, my concern about the abuse of public money by the GLC.
The members of the Labour and Liberal parties are laughing behind their hands. They are holding their hands to their breasts like nuns and saying that they are whiter then white, but, at the same time, they are arguing that the Lords amendments will not change, clause 2 in the way we fear. If Labour and Liberal Members do not share that fear, why do they not vote against the Lords amendments? The argument has been put time and time again, but they still attempt to split hairs. Neither party has proved anything. They way in which Liberal and Labour Members laugh behind their hands leads me to challenge their sincerity. I do not believe that they want to do anything to stop party political propaganda on the rates. They believe that their parties have profited from it, and they want that to continue. That is why they want these amendments to be accepted.
I was glad to hear my hon. Friend the Minister say that legislation will be introduced on this subject. I ask him to take a fresh look to ensure that the amendments are dealt with properly. Will he say that again and underline it in red? My hon. Friends needs to say that repeatedly.
I do not doubt that the Lords amendments weaken clause 2 seriously. They therefore damage the Bill and weaken its basic intention—to stop party political propaganda on the rates. It is necessary to stop that propaganda, because it is an abuse of democracy of public money and of our way of life. There is no doubt that, unless that material is stopped, the position will worsen and the abuse of public money will increase. One need only look at the party political propaganda generated at public expense in recent years to see the steep increase in the amount churned out.

Mr. Richard Holt: My hon. Friend said that in 20 years he had seen only one copy of that newspaper. I have lived in Lambeth for one year and I receive party political literature every day.

Mr. Greenway: I made my comment as a citizen of Westminster, referring to Westminster city council. My hon. Friend is right—that is the rule in neighbouring authorities. It happens all the time. That is why I am justified in saying that, in trying to defend that propaganda, the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), for whom I have a high regard, is laughing behind his hands, metaphorically speaking.
The GLC spent something like £100 million of ratepayers' money by one device or another attempting to save itself from abolition. Would the clause as it stands with Lords amendments have prevented that from happening as the Bill was then drafted? I do not believe that it would.
11.30 pm
I believe that it is important to dismiss the Lords amendments. In the last few weeks £5,000 of public money has been donated to Ealing CND. I believe that the Lords amendments will enable that sort of abuse to continue.
The money was given to Ealing CND to promote a camaign—totally spurious, of course—to turn Ealing into a nuclear-free zone, a fatuous idea. If that sort of donation had been repeated across the London boroughs, it would have cost London ratepayers about £160 million or £170 million, and that would be just to put just one side of the question. If money had been spent on putting both sides of the question, it would have cost London ratepayers about £500,000. My argument is that it was wrong for the GLC to give Ealing CND £5,000, and to spend £81,000 on CND activities across London, as it has in the last 12 months, and it would be equally wrong to give that sort of money to those who promote the opposing argument.
Until legislation effectively prevents that kind of gross abuse of public money, the House cannot be satisfied that it has done its democratic duty by the nation. I look to the Minister to reassure me that he meant what he said, and that a Bill will be introduced early to overcome the Lords amendments. I ask the Minister to say why this cannot be done in a one-clause Bill immediately after Easter.

Mr. Dickens: Speaking as I do from the safety of the GLC nuclear-free zone, I wish to make a few remarks before allowing other hon. Members to finish the debate.
Having listened to all the contributions, particularly those of hon. Members who have crowded into the Chamber at this late hour to take part in the debate, I think that hon. Members seem to have grasped the idea that ratepayers do not want money to be used for political propaganda. It does not matter if the local council is Conservative, Labour, alliance or controlled by other odds and sundries. The general ratepayers do not want their rates used for political propaganda, full stop.
The Bill has in it a test that has been made a little tougher by the Lords amendments. It does not satisfy us by a long chalk. If the test is too firm, a local authority may wriggle to one side of the black or white. If the test is less rigid, as we seek, we would from this moment onwards scotch spending on political propaganda.
The House of Lords has amended the Bill. We do not have legislation at the moment. If we do not pass the Bill as amended by the Lords, we shall not get a Bill on the statute book, which we all seem to want, by 1 April. The Minister has said that, in the next session of Parliament, he will bring forward a measure to restore the provision which most hon. Members want. As we have been given


that assurance, surely we shall represent the ratepayers better by voting for the Government's Bill, even if we are cross about the way in which it has come back to the House. We can hold the Minister to his pledge to amend the Bill. That is what the ratepayers want and that is why I shall support the Government tonight.

Mr. Christopher Hawkins: I shall be incredibly brief; I do not want to make a speech but merely to ask a question about a matter which affects my constituency and Derbyshire as a whole. I raised it on Second reading when my hon. Friend said that he hoped that the Bill would prevent the problem. Derbyshire county councl has been forcing all schools in my constituency to return their stationery to the county council to have it overprinted with CND slogans saying:
Derbyshire supports nuclear free-zones.
Almost all the teachers and governors I have met, whether Labour, Conservative, SDP or Liberal, have objected to the misuse of education for party political propaganda. I was assured by the Minister and by two Secretaries of State that one of the purposes of the Bill was to stop such a practice. Can my hon. Friend tell me whether we have stopped that practice? If not, why not?

Mr. Robert B. Jones: It will not have escaped my hon. Friend's notice that his hon. Friends are very concerned and angry about two issues—the weakening of the Bill and the way in which the decision of the House has been pre-empted by incompetence by one or more of the Department's officials.
The first depends on the difference between the two wordings, whether something is "designed to affect" or whether it
can reasonably be regarded as likey to affect.
In the first case, design is much more difficult to prove. For example, if a peice of literature was put out, financed by a local authority, which said, "Vote Labour" or "Vote Conservative", clearly that would be designed to affect, and rightly would be caught by the law, as indeed it would be by other legislation already in existence.
The law would also cover a case in which it was possible to prove that there was a conspiracy by the leaders of an authority, whichever political party was involved, to influence an election by putting out over a period literature which was likely to lead to a greater number of votes for that party. Design would be much more difficult to prove. Of course, it could be proved if available to the court was literature such as the extract from the Marxist group presented earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth).
We have spent much time talking about the Westminster Reporter. That would not be caught by the legislation, because it could not be proved to be designed to affect public support. However, it could be regarded as reasonably likely to affect support, and that was the wording that the Lords tossed out. Over many years we have seen a growth of political propaganda on the rates. That is why the Widdicombe committee was set up, such propaganda started in recent times when authorities like Walsall produced a newspaper that went rond the borough and carried various political points.
The practice has escalated and needs to be dealt with, but I am not convinced that the Bill, given the way that the Lords have amended it, will catch anything unless it

is absolutely blatant. I am sure that that is why my right hon. Friend and his colleagues on the Front Bench disagreed both in the other place and in the Committee with a wording that would have led to the Bill being along the lines of the Lords amendment.
What can we do about this matter? I agree with my hon. Friend the Minister. Because of the timing, he has a pistol at his head, because he needs to get the Bill through to ensure that no retrospective effect arises from the 1 April date contained in another part of the Bill. Although my noble Friend was quite clear about the possible trap when he spoke in the debate in another place, no one thought to do anything about it. That is why we are in this situation. When my hon. Friend replies to the debate, I expect him to say something about action that has been taken against those whose imcompetence has led us to this position.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The arguments advanced by some hon. Members on the Government side for not opposing the Government are twofold. First, it is said that the Minister has a technical obstacle and the Bill must be given a fair wind in order to meet a 1 April deadline. As the first speaker quite rightly said, that is irrelevant to all parts of the Bill except the rate setting part which is not governed by the amendments at all.
The Minister conceded when the Bill was before the House last time that clause 1 is, first, not binding on local authorities and, secondly, is unlikely to be the material event affecting local authorities this year. Most local authorities have already set their rates and those who have not now have the experience of the court decisions that followed the decisions of the district auditor in Lambeth and Liverpool.
I rebut the argument that the Government need to give in for technical reasons of a timetable and will not accept, simply because they do not have time to accept, the challenge issued by the Lords. If the Government do not like what the Lords want, they should say so and not pretend they are being strong while being weak. The Government say that they intend to put in another Bill to be introduced in the coming year the things that the Lords have taken out of this Bill. That is a severe breach of what the Government said they intended to do when they set up the Widdicombe committee. That committee was set up to report. If the Government had followed the interim report, they would not have found themselves in nearly as many difficulties as they have been in since.
I hope that what the Minister of State said at the beginning of the debate does not confirm the suspicions that many of us have—that the good work of the Widdicombe committee is already subject to the prejudgment of the Department of the Environment, and that the Government do not intend to pay any heed to the conclusions of the Widdicombe committee, but will do what they intend to do with their minority support in the country and their somewhat distorted minority support in the House.
If the Government believe it wise to put on the statute book legislation like that which was originally in the Bill in this or in the next Session of Parliament, I hope they will think again. I should like to say something about part II and the clause and these amendments.
11.45 pm
Amendments Nos. 1 and 3 which stand in the names of my hon. Friends and I were all-party amendments in the Lords. There is, clearly, a difference between publicity


and publicity material which, on the one hand, appears to be designed to affect political support and which on its face manifests a certain intention and, on the other, a test which is far more subjective and which the Lords amendment seeks to remove.
While it may hve been bad enough to have gone far beyond Widdicombe, as the Government have, one hopes that the arguments will have persuaded them to agree that the objective test is preferable. The Widdicombe committee made the position clear when it said:
We wish to avoid new controls that will be imprecise or raise major definitional problems … the content of the material is the best test.
The content, not the intention, the committee said.
The House should accept this series of Lords amendments—and should do so with grace—not only because they have logic in that they represent more closely the intentions of the Widdicombe committee. The Government should back down from their position of seeking to have it both ways, on the one hand pretending to fly in the face of logic and reason while, on the other, trying to gain support for a view that will temporarily let them off the hook tonight. If the Government do not change their view on this matter, they will have greater opposition next year, when politically they will be more embarrassed than Westminster city council has embarrassed them tonight.

Mr. Straw: The Conservative party has a substantial built-in majority in the other place—[Interruption.]—on paper. We are discussing these amendments tonight because the Conservative party in that House was unable to sustain its majority when the Bill in its original form was debated there.
When the Labour party proposed these amendments, support for them came from Independents, Liberals, SDP peers and from a small number of Conservatives, including Lady Faithfull. The amendments were passed in the other place mainly because Conservative peers decided to stay away because they could not stomach some of the draconian contents of the Bill.
Conservative Members in this House must remember those facts when they judge the Bill as it is proposed to be amended and when they decide whether it would be appropriate to have in the next Session of Parliament legislation designed to overturn a measure which will have gone through the due process of enactment in this Session.
I agree with the hon. Members for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) and for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) that the test which would be removed from the Bill and which would be replaced by the test
or can reasonably be regarded as likely to affect
would to some extent go further than the original test. If that were not the case, we should have nothing about which to argue.
It would go further than Widdicombe proposed, and because of that the other place decided to remove the second test. But, as the hon. Member for Milton Keynes (Mr. Benyon) and the right hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker) pointed out, even with the removal of that second test, the Bill will still be a powerful weapon against any local authority which, in the view of a ratepayer, sought to spend ratepayers' money on party political progaganda.
The Bill, as amended, will say that a local authority

shall not publish any material which, in whole or in part, appears to be designed to affect public support for a political party.
That is an objective test. It cannot be evaded by Committee reports or by legal jiggery-pokery. The courts will apply common sense in deciding whether material appears to be designed to affect public support for a political party.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the legislation as it stands would catch the Westminster Reporter?

Mr. Straw: Yes I do. I believe that the amended measure would catch the Westminster Reporter. Nobody reading it through—I know that the hon. Gentleman has not had a chance to read it through, as we have on these Benches—certainly if he were a judge, could doubt that such material appears to be designed to affect public support for a political party. There is no other purpose in publishing material of that kind.
To reassure Government Members who worry that the Bill will end up too weak, the Opposition as well as local authority associations believe that the measure contains substantial powers against local authorities. Conservative, Liberal and Labour councils are represented on those associations. The right hon. Member for Blackpool, South, whose local authority is Conservative, spoke earlier of its concern and that of many other authorities about the legislation. There is no doubt about that.
The Bill, even as amended, will still restrict local government in many respects, far more than Government are restricted in their publicity. The test of intent, taken together with the ruling of the Divisional Court in the Lambeth and Liverpool cases, which gives great power in practice to council officers to give advice, will mean that many activities and statements of local authorities which were previously acceptable will be wholly excluded.
Some hon. Members may have read in newspapers reports of Glasgow city council being advised to exclude any reference to Government policy in its publications because that was thought to be outside the Bill.
The last thing that I shall say to the Minister—I hope that he will be given leave to reply to the debate—is that we understand, and have been given good evidence tonight if we did not understand before, the pressure on Ministers from the bovver boys on the Conservative Back Benches and from the boot boys in the Cabinet, such as the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
I hope that Ministers will not heed the siren voices from their Back Benchers and from within the Cabinet, but that they will give the legislation a chance to work. We did not write this measure, but we hope that Ministers will wait to see which side of the House is right before they return to the House with hasty legislation to overturn decisions that were made six months previously.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Earlier this evening at about 10.30 pm, you asked me to resume my seat. I seek your guidance and information about the reason why I was asked to resume my seat, especially as I was referring to problems in my own constituency in Leicester. We have heard the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) talking about Westminster city council and the publication of propaganda in his area. I do feel rather deprived, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I was trying to represent my constituents and talk about the expenditure of £370,000.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I explained to the hon. Gentleman that he was making no reference to the amendments before the House.

Mr. Bruinvels: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman wants to challenge the Chair, there are ways of doing it, but not now.

Mr. Christopher Hawkins: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I respect your power in these matters, but if you check Hansard tomorrow you will find that my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) was—

Mr. Deputy speaker: Order. Mr. William Waldegrave.

Mr. Waldegrave: With the leave of the House, I should like to reply to a number of points that have been made. I am not sure whether I can do justice to some of them in the few minutes that I have.
There will be a general consensus that the least satisfactory part of tonight's debate has been the somewhat unctuous performance by some Opposition Members—the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) took the biscuit with the Westminister council publication. I have not seen that. How childish that they have managed to find one Conservative council publication which may or may not be excluded by the Bill against the mass of material from Labour councils. Is the Liberal party saying—it is just possible—that there is only one party in Britain which never puts a foot wrong. I can assure the House from my experience in Bristol that that is not so. That is a dangerous game to play.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker) asked about tourism. The local authorities have the power, going right back to before 1948, to publicise tourism. There is a specific provision in section 144 of the Local Government Act 1972, so I can set his mind at rest on that.
My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins) asked about sloganeering. I shall write to him, but it is worthwhile to draw his attention, and perhaps that of his ratepayers, to the judgment of Mr. Justice Glidewell on the fact that local authorities have the power to give information but not to sloganeer. That was what limited the power of the GLC last year.
The basic point at which we must look tonight was made clearly and powerfully by my hon. Friends the Members for Milton Keynes (Mr. Benyon), for Stafford (Mr. Cash) and for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens). We have half a loaf here; something to get on the statute book. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) misunderstands the timing point. It is not mainly to do with the date for a rate provision, but rather that, if we go beyond 1 April the publicity provisions will be retrospective, and severely so.
My hon. Friends the Members for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) and for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) made powerful and well-argued speeches. They said that it would have been much better not to be in this position. I shall not shelter behind the fact that officials' heads will roll. It is the responsibility of Ministers to see that we get legislation right and we did not do so. We were then faced with considering whether the matter could be corrected.
At first we thought that there was a precedent of a one-clause Bill—the Pirates (Head Money) Repeal Bill of 1850—but unfortunately, despite its promising title, it did not provide us with a precedent. Therefore, there was a real difficulty.
My hon. Friends the Members for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) and for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels), before he was unfortunately cut short, asked whether we are now clearly committed to returning to the matter in the autumn to restrengthen the Bill. It will disappoint Labour Members, but I can tell my hon. Friends that we are so committed. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made a clear statement to that effect the other day.

Mr. Benyon: This is an absolutely vital point as far as the local authority associations are concerned. Is my hon. Friend saying that he will do this regardless, will not actually see what happens, how the Bill works out, before taking that decision?

Mr. Waldegrave: My right hon. Friend's commitment to strengthen the clauses weakened by the Lords is clear, but obviously, when we come to the drafting, we must take into account what has happened.
I will just draw attention once more to a powerful point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West, because it is the heart of this whole matter. This really relates to the rather childish points being made from a sedentary position by hon. Gentlemen. It may well be that there are Conservative authorities tempted to go outside the conventions, and if there are I can well understand why, under pressure from Liberal and Labour authorities, they are doing so. That is the evil that we want to stop. We want to prevent our people from having to behave as badly as their people. That is the basic purpose of this Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 3 agreed to.

Clause 3

OTHER RESTRICTIONS OF EXISTING POWERS

Lords amendment: No. 4, in page 2, line 34, leave out from beginning to end of line 5 on page 3 and insert—

"(a) in subsection (1) (power to make information available) after "other authorities" insert "mentioned in subsection (1B) below" and for "as to local government matters affecting the area" substitute "relating to the functions of the authority";

(b) after that subsection insert—

"(1A) A local authority may arrange for the publication within their area of information as to the services available in the area provided by them or by other authorities mentioned in subsection (1B) below.";

(c) in subsection (2)(a) (power to publish certain information) for "on matters relating to local government" substitute "relating to the functions of the authority".

(1A) After the subsection (1A) inserted by subsection (1) above, in section 142 of the 1972 Act insert—

"(1B) The other authorities referred to above are any other local authority, the Inner London Education Authority, a joint authority established by Part IV of the Local Government Act 1985 and any authority, board or committee which discharges functions which would otherwise fall to be discharged by two or more local or other such authorities."; and in section 88 of the 1973 Act insert—

"(1B) The other authorities referred to above are any other local authority and any authority, board or committee which discharges functions which would otherwise fall to be discharged by two or more local authorities,"."

Read a Second time.

Mr. Roland Boyes: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, (f), in line 10, at end insert 'functions exercised'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take also the following:
Sub-amendments to Lords amendment No. 4: (g) in line 11, after 'area', insert 'exercised or'.

(i) in line 12, at end insert
'or by the other bodies mentioned in subsection (1C)'.

(j) in line 12, at end insert
'or by the other bodies mentioned in subsection ( ID) below where the material relates to a local government matter affecting the area'.

(o) in line 24, after 'authorities', insert 'and any police authority'.

(q) in line 24, at end insert—
'"(1C) The other bodies referred to are statutory undertakers as defined by section 290(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, health authorities established by the Health Services Act 1980, The Post Office and British Telecom";'.

(s) in line 24, at end insert—
'"(1D) The other bodies referred to are government departments, other public bodies and voluntary organizations".'.

(u) in line 29, at end insert—
'"(1C) The other bodies referred to are statutory undertakers as defined by section 275 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972, health authorities established by the Health Services Act 1980, The Post Office and British Telecom".'.

(w) in line 29, at end insert—
'"(1D) The other bodies referred to are government departments, other public bodies and voluntary organisations".'.

Lords amendment No. 5.

Lords amendment No. 6, in page 3, line 11, after "only" insert—
(a) for the purpose of promoting the economic development of the authority's area, where the publicity is incidental to other activities undertaken or to be undertaken by the authority for that purpose, or
(b) "

Sub-amendment (a) thereto, in line 3, leave out from 'area,' to 'or' in line 5.

Lords amendment No. 7, in page 3, line 14, at end insert
but the following provisions of this section apply to expenditure incurred by a local authority under section 142 below on information as to the services provided by them under this section, or otherwise relating to their functions under this section, as they apply to expenditure incurred under this section.

Sub-amendment (a) thereto, in page 3, line 14, at end insert
and it is hereby declared that this section is a function of the authority for the purposes of section 142 below".

Lords amendments Nos. 8 and 9.

12 midnight

Mr. Boyes: I want to deal very briefly with three aspects of this group of amendments.
First, the Government are unnecessarily introducing a distinction between functions and services, which sows even greater confusion in a Bill already riddled with anomalies and has been described a number of times as a lawyers' paradise. In Committee, in far too many instances, Ministers replied to questions that the point would have to be decided in court.
Secondly, I shall deal with the problems that face voluntary and charitable organisations, which play a vital role in our society, particularly in the present difficult economic conditions, which increase the number of social problems due to unemployment, poverty and deprivation.

Our amendment aims to broaden section 142 and enable local authorities to make greater use of that section and depend less on section 137.
Thirdly, I shall examine and demonstrate the difficult and complicated situation in which many metropolitan local authorities will find themselves on section 137 cash, which is used mainly in those areas for job creation and job protection because they are areas of very high unemployment, because essential publicity will have to be paid for with the cash that could be used for creating additional jobs.
Finally, I shall show, as Hardy would say to Laurel, that the Government have got themselves into another fine mess by trying to limit the use of section 137.
First of all, with regard to amendments (f) and (g), the Government introduced the Lords amendment as a concession to costlier publicity. They realised that it was important for local authorities such as parish councils and town councils. I had the pleasure of being a member of one for more than 10 years and am well aware of the vital and valuable work they do in our communities. One of the important functions that they often carry out is the production, for example, of a brochure describing the services that are available, often provided by other tiers of government. But, as there have been more and more cuts on local authorities in other tiers, parish councils have frequently found themselves in the front line of campaigns against the closure of schools and hospitals and the cancelling of other proposed developments.
The Bill as drafted limits the general publicity powers in section 142 to the functions of the authority issuing the publicity. The new power contained in the Lords amendment allows publicity of the services available in the area covered by the local authority and other local government bodies. It is not clear why the Government have introduced the distinction between functions and services, and our amendment would allow publicity on both.
"Functions" are usually taken to mean both the duties and powers of local authorities, but they also include a range of discretionary powers that local authorities may or may not use. On the other hand, services would appear to be activities undertaken by a local authority, whether under mandatory duties or discretionary powers. The point of the distinction might be to exclude some publicity by one local authority about the exercise—or more likely non-exercise—of discretionary functions by other local Government bodies. For example, it would prevent a metropolitan district council from issuing publicity about the non-use by a passenger transport joint board of its discretionary powers to set concessionary fares. The amendment takes the sensible course of adding a reference to functions, and the exercise of them. Unless the Government are deliberately and actively trying to cause confusion, we cannot see why they should not accept the amendment.
Voluntary organisations will also face problems. Our amendment would broaden section 142 so that local authorities would be much less dependent upon the use of section 137 for the purpose of allowing voluntary organisations to publicise their functions. A number of hon. Members on both sides of the House are active in voluntary organisations of many different kinds and will be aware of the necessity for, and will support, the amendment.
It seems peculiar that money can be used only where publicity is incidental. We cannot understand why it is that if a voluntary organisation asks for £1,000 for publicity purpose—for example the printing of a newsletter—it is not allowed to have that £1,000, but it can apply for a grant of £10,000 and use £1,000 of it for that purpose, because the printing of the newsletter is incidental to the purpose. I would be grateful if the Minister would say something about that unnecessary distinction.
Widdicombe recognised that if local authorities were to be prohibited from using section 137 for their publicity, this prohibition would have to exclude voluntary organisations, or a number of important projects such as welfare rights campaigns would also be prohibited. Therefore, he proposed, in paragraph 244(d):
the exclusion of publicity from section 137 … should be so framed as not to prevent bodies funded under that section from issuing publicity to promote their own aims and objectives provided they are not acting as proxies for local authorities in unauthorised publicity".
Unfortunately, as in many other instances in this Bill, the Government do not follow Widdicombe's wording.
In another place an amendment by Lord Hayter said that local authorities could incur expenditure to enable a public body or voluntary organisation to promote its own aims and objectives, providing such publicity is not otherwise prohibited. However, the Government argued on 13 March 1986 in the other place that voluntary organisations had sections 142(1), 142(2)(a) and 137(3) available for financing them except for—and a most peculiar and disparaging word was used by the Minister—a whole range of sometimes "curious" single-issue campaign groups. I have carefully read the speech of the Minister in the other place and not once does he define in any way what he means by a "curious" group? We would argue that the so-called "curious" group, which could include such things as a welfare rights take-up campaign, could not get sections 142(1), 142(2)(a) or 137(3) to finance it and if it were requesting a grant to cover costs of publicity it could not get section 137(1) cash either. We are of the opinion that the widening of section 142 would mean that local authorities could fund a far wider range of voluntary organisation publicity and there would be no danger of it becoming a loophole for political publicity because the prohibition in clause 2 would still apply. All the amendment does is make it lawful for a local authority to use its section 142 powers to fund a wider range of campaigns including such things as hospital closures and welfare rights take-up.
I am concerned about the limiting of expenditure to the 2p. Our amendment is simple in its declaration that section 137 is a function for the purposes of section 142 but it improves the financial position by not making such expenditure count against the 2p limit. My area, Tyne and Wear, has the highest rate of unemployment in Britain. On April 1 Tyne and Wear metropolitan council will be abolished. That means that we lose the product of a 2p rate that could be spent to enable us to create new jobs and protect existing jobs.

Mr. Holt: rose—

Mr. Boyes: I have asked the Minister a number of times why he will not double the amount of money that the

other authorities in the metropolitan county areas can raise so that they can carry out essential functions after the metropolitan counties and the GLC have been abolished.

Mr. Holt: rose—

Mr. Boyes: I am not giving way. I have finished.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: My concern with amendment 4 is that it will weaken the Bill, especially by paragraph (c) where, instead of "matters relating to local government" the amendment would insert matters
relating to the functions of the authority.
Many things relate to the function of an authority but not to local government. The local authorities have the function of being responsible for civil defence, so that under the amendment they could support the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, as the authority does in Leicester city, or nuclear free zones, which have already cost the citizens of Leicester more than £1,500.
This is an unwelcome amendment, because it will give power to authorities such as Leicester to indulge in national politics at a local level. In other words, Leicester city will be able to undertake national campaigns against the deregulation of buses and the Transport Bill, as indeed it did on local government reform, or against the social security Green Paper. This is totally unacceptable. The advertising expenditure on national campaigns was £209,800 in 1983–84, £284,400 in 1984–85 and £377,300 in 1985–86. The amendment is therefore unacceptable to me, and I very much regret the fact that the House of Lords has sent it to us for approval.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Two of the amendments selected for discussion in this group are in the name of my right hon. and hon. Friends. The first is on a specifically London point. Several of the amendments suggest additional authorities about which local authorities should give information. It is suggested for example, that the health authorities, the gas boards or the electricity boards should fall into this category and that it would be relevant for the local authority to provide information about them. We believe that we should add not just the fire, civil defence and police authorities elsewhere, but also the police authority in London, which at present is excluded. The specific reason is a practical one. The police authority in London is the Home Secretary. That does not change the point that it is appropriate for local authorities, for example, to give information to the public about general crime prevention, neighbourhood watch or anti-theft measures, and it is a ludicrous anomaly that such information might be excluded by the provisions of the Bill.
Our amendment (a) relates to Lords amendment No. 6 which now allows that expenditure should be permitted on the promotion of the economic development of an area relevant to the local authority. We do not believe that the local authority should be allowed to spend money on promoting the economic development of an area only if the expenditure is incidental to other expenditure on economic development under section 137 or 142 or otherwise.
We agree with the Widdicombe interim report that, generally, powers of publicity should be under section 142, and our two selected amendments tie in with that. For reasons that the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) has advanced and that are well


known to all who have an informed concern about these matters, we do not believe that money should be spent on information only if it is incidental to the main purposes. We do not believe, as the Government believe, that information should be excluded if that is the only purpose for which funding is provided by local authorities.
The Government have still not appreciated the nature of the practical responsibilities of local government. I hope that they will show signs of being willing to learn from the suggestions of amendment (f)—which we will support if it is pushed to a vote—the amendments in the names of right hon. and hon. Friends and the other amendments that would make the measure more relevant to the day-to-day needs of local councils.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: The hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) commented on the use of the word "curious" to describe single-issue bodies. Single-issue organisations sin more often through misadventure than through malice. Enthusiasts for a certain cause get together. They tend to mix only with others who are similarly interested in that cause. Little by little they often lose sight of the alternative argument—the alternative way of answering the question that lies at the heart of the allocation of priorities outside their own narrow circle. Their newsletters and literature and their applications to local authorities for grants are often perceived by others who do not share their central preoccupation as being subversive and one-sided. One sided they often are. Subversive they very seldom intend to be, although sometimes they are subversive.
I should be glad if there were a longer period in which to assess the effects of this legislation, because considerable dangers affecting the central functions of many voluntary organisations are enshrined in too narrow a definition. I should like the Bill to be interpreted in a spirit which encourages people to fight for their corner but which also lays upon them an obligation to look beyond their own narrow interests and to take into account the often extremely respectable arguments that weigh against their preferred solution.

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) said that the widening is in response to the points that were put to the Government first by parish councils and then, in another place, by other local authorities. We have tried to meet those concerns in a reasonable way by saying that in addition to being able to publish information relating to their own functions, local authorities will be able to publish information relating to the services of the different tiers of local authorities. As the hon. Gentleman said, we could have widened it to include the functions of other authorities. We thought that "services" was a reasonable compromise, and the Government stand by that decision.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the incidental publicity of voluntary organisations. Our purpose has been to follow Widdicombe: to get rid of the information function per se in section 137 and put it into section 142. However, in relation to the hon. Gentleman's 2p rate point we have had to follow the recent court judgments and say that information under section 142 that is incidental to a function under section 137 should, like the other overhead costs of section 137 functions, be charged to the 2p rate. I think that is the right decision. The hon. Gentleman's

other points on the 2p rate are not a matter for discussion tonight, but we are well aware of the anxieties in the ex-metropolitan areas about them.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) referred to the Metropolitan police. His point on crime prevention is reasonably met by the housing powers of boroughs. To give a general power to local authorities to comment on the Home Secretary as a police authority would represent a great widening of their powers which we do not intend to implement in this Bill. The hon. Gentleman's amendment No. 6 (a) would widen the powers of local authorities and enable them to carry out publicity campaigns on economic development. We do not wish to give new powers to local authorities to fund economic development promotion in advance of the Widdicombe inquiry's main report. I urge him, therefore, not to press that amendment.
This meets the reasonable concerns of hon. Members and of another place that local authorities should be able to comment on each other's affairs in a reasonable way. I am aware of the anxiety of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) that the Government may have gone too far, but the powers of local authorities are being very considerably constrained and we have to decide where to draw the line. If we made it impossible for local authorities to comment on each other's services or to give information on each other's services, we should find ourselves in considerable difficulties. Therefore, I must ask for my hon. Friend's indulgence.

Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 78, Noes 170.

Division No.116]
[12.25 am


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Haynes, Frank


Alton, David
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Barron, Kevin
Howells, Geraint


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Beith, A. J.
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Bermingham, Gerald
Kirkwood, Archy


Boyes, Roland
Leadbitter, Ted


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Livsey, Richard


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Loyden, Edward


Caborn, Richard
McCartney, Hugh


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
McWilliam, John


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Madden, Max


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Marek, Dr John


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Maxton, John


Clarke, Thomas
Meadowcroft, Michael


Clay, Robert
Michie, William


Clelland, David Gordon
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
Nellist, David


Corbyn, Jeremy
Parry, Robert


Cunningham, Dr John
Patchett, Terry


Dalyell, Tam
Pike, Peter


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Dewar, Donald
Prescott, John


Dixon, Donald
Redmond, Martin


Dormand, Jack
Rogers, Allan


Duffy, A. E. P.
Rowlands, Ted


Eadie, Alex
Skinner, Dennis


Eastham, Ken
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Spearing, Nigel


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Stott, Roger


Fisher, Mark
Straw, Jack


Foster, Derek
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Godman, Dr Norman
Wallace, James


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Hardy, Peter
Welsh, Michael






Wigley, Dafydd
Tellers for the Ayes:


Williams, Rt Hon A.
Mr. Allen McKay and



Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe.


NOES


Alexander, Richard
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Hawksley, Warren


Amess, David
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney


Ancram, Michael
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Heddle, John


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Hickmet, Richard


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Baldry, Tony
Hind, Kenneth


Batiste, Spencer
Hirst, Michael


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Holt, Richard


Bellingham, Henry
Howard, Michael


Bevan, David Gilroy
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Blackburn, John
Hunter, Andrew


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Jackson, Robert


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Jessel, Toby


Bottomley, Peter
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Jones, Robert (Herts W)


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Key, Robert


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Bright, Graham
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Brinton, Tim
Knowles, Michael


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Lang, Ian


Browne, John
Latham, Michael


Bruinvels, Peter
Lawler, Geoffrey


Burt, Alistair
Lawrence, Ivan


Butcher, John
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam
Lester, Jim


Butterfill, John
Lightbown, David


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Lilley, Peter


Carttiss, Michael
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Cash, William
Lord, Michael


Chope, Christopher
Lyell, Nicholas


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Conway, Derek
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Coombs, Simon
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Cope, John
Major, John


Couchman, James
Malins, Humfrey


Cranborne, Viscount
Malone, Gerald


Crouch, David
Marland, Paul


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Mather, Carol


Dickens, Geoffrey
Maude, Hon Francis


Dorrell, Stephen
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Dover, Den
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Dunn, Robert
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Durant, Tony
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Eggar, Tim
Moate, Roger


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Fallon, Michael
Moore, Rt Hon John


Favell, Anthony
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Moynihan, Hon C.


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Newton, Tony


Forth, Eric
Nicholls, Patrick


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Normanton, Tom


Franks, Cecil
Norris, Steven


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Osborn, Sir John


Freeman, Roger
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Gale, Roger
Pawsey, James


Galley, Roy
Powell, William (Corby)


Gow, Ian
Powley, John


Grant, Sir Anthony
Raffan, Keith


Greenway, Harry
Rathbone, Tim


Gregory, Conal
Rhodes James, Robert


Ground, Patrick
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Grylls, Michael
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Hanley, Jeremy
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Hannam, John
Rowe, Andrew


Harris, David
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Harvey, Robert
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy





Sayeed, Jonathan
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Shersby, Michael
Waller, Gary


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Watts, John


Spencer, Derek
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Wolfson, Mark


Stokes, John
Wood, Timothy


Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)



Thurnham, Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Trippier, David
Mr. Archie Hamilton and


Viggers, Peter
Mr. Michael Neubert.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment to the Lords amendment negatived.

Lords amendment No. 4 agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 5 to 9 agreed to.

Clause 4

CODES OF RECOMMENDED PRACTICE AS REGARDS PUBLICITY

Lords amendment: No. 10, in page 3, line 25, at end insert
for the guidance of local authorities in determining whether to incur expenditure on publicity.

Mr. Waldegrave: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take also Lords amendment No. 14.

Mr. Waldegrave: The amendment deals with the codes which is the other principal commitment which my right hon. Friend has had to make on this matter. We believe that more power is needed to the elbow of the code which we seek to agree with local authorities and for which my right hon. Friend has the ultimate responsibility. We greatly regret the loss of the words "have regard to" which the Lords removed from the Bill. We do not think that the code is left with enough power as it stands and we will seek to consult the local authorities to try to agree the code in the meantime.

Mr. Meadowcroft: The Minister's words almost stuck in his throat as he moved that we should accept the Lords amendment. He faced similar difficulties in Committee in response to his hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Galley) and when he promised to look at the matter on Report. In Committee, the Minister tried out a code and faced such overwhelming objection to parts of that code and over the problem whether the code should be enforced in statute, that in the end he was forced to withdraw it.

Mr. Waldegrave: I know that the hon. Member is a fair man and I know that he would not want to misrepresent the matter. In response to the Committee asking us to produce some outline ideas about the kind of material which might be in the code, we quickly produced those ideas. The ideas were not a code or a draft and it was not withdrawn. The hon. Gentleman is misleading the House on this matter.

Mr. Meadowcroft: If the Minister did not want to try out on the Committee a code which might have had some effect, he should not have produced one at all. As I understood it, the code that was produced was an adapted code of the sort used in the Civil Service. That is what it


was incumbent for the Government to adhere to in their practices, and the same type of code and principles should apply to local government.
The hon. Member for Halifax argued very cogently that if a code was brought in it should have the force and approval of the House and of another place. As it was not possible to do that in such a form, the Minister understandably withdrew the code and undertook to reexamine it again on report.
On Report, the Minister said that we should look at the code after the amendments had been tabled in another place. Of course, in another place an amendment was passed that went counter to what the Government wished, rather than being in their favour. It is significant that in the other place it was accepted that the code should be voluntary. It was not suggested that it would be other than for guidance. At that point, the all-party amendment that was eventually passed in the other place was moved by the noble Lord from the Conservative party, Lord Campbell of Alloway. That made the point very logically that, if the code was for guidance only there was clearly no point in having the words "have regard to" in the Bill. Lord Campbell argued that it would not be subject to judicial review and that there would be no power behind it to go to judicial review if it was for advice only. The other place therefore agreed, understandably, to take out that provision.
The point behind the Bill is that local government processes and conventions on acceptable action have broken down. If it is argued that a local government is abusing its powers by putting out propaganda, there is clearly no point in producing a code of practice based on good will because, by definition, good will has gone.
It is incumbent on the Minister either to produce a code of practice to which authorities must adhere and which has the force of law or to abandon the code completely. Their Lordships did the next best thing and simply said, "Let us accept explicitly that the code is for guidance only." They removed subsection (6), which contained the words "have regard to". That was at least partially sensible. We therefore wish to support the Lords amendment.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I very much regret that we are asked to support these key amendments, because they make a mockery of the code. I take issue with the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft), because I believe that the "have regard to" provision would have meant that councils were bound to treat the code of practice seriously. If they chose to ignore it, it would not be an offence in itself. If litigation resulted, the judges would have to take a breach of the code into account in reaching their verdict. The other place has deleted that provision, and the code is now for guidance only. If we accept the Lords amendments, provided the local authority has read the code, it can proceed on the basis of ignoring it.
Members in the other place seemed to be confused because, having effectively destroyed the code, they insisted that it should be subject to approval by both Houses of Parliament. If the Lords amendments are accepted, the code will have more parliamentary weight and dignity but no legal effect, which must be nonsense. To have such a code seems to be worse than having no code. It will bring the authority of Parliament into

contempt. Left-wing councillors will be able to thumb their noses at the code, although it has been approved by Parliament.
This is a serious matter. Those of us who served on the Standing Committee referred to a number of worries about how the legislation would be interpreted in relation to the finer points we had noted in our constituencies. My hon. Friend the Minister was at pains to point out that, before the other place made its decision on clause 4, it would have been necessary to have measures to deal with those finer points.
These amendments are not helpful. They go to the heart of the Bill. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can assure us that this matter will be dealt with in future legislation. The code is a vital element in ensuring flexibility in the legislation.

Mr. Roy Galley: As my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) said, these amendments emasculate clause 4, which was one of the Bill's major pillars. The term used by my hon. Friend the Minister—"regret"—was meek in the light of the actions by the other place. As has been stated, the object of the amendments, which were passed across party lines with a substantial majority in Committee, was to give extra force to the code of practice by having it approved under the affirmative procedure by this House so that the courts would need to take it into account when making their judgments on whether propaganda issued by councils came within the provisions of the Bill.
It makes a mockery of Parliament and of the law to say that, the Bill having come from their Lordships' House, the code will be subject to the affirmative procedure, yet will be only for the guidance of local authorities. That sets the will of this House at naught.
I hope that my hon. Friend will give us some clear assurances that a firm code of practice that will be approved under the affirmative procedure and applicable in the courts will be brought before the House at the earliest possible opportunity.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Galley), I am concerned about the code of practice and its relevance to the law. I am fearful that it will be for guidance only and will not be taken seriously by the local authorities concerned.
I appreciate that the code has to be approved by both Houses of Parliament. The fact is that any local authority could read it and ignore it. The Minister, I know, has received a letter from the chief agent for Leicester city Conservatives regarding a proposed new company called Leicester Publicity Ltd., which appears to be trying to circumvent the code which I should like to see have the force of law. I refer particularly to the aims:
the Committee accepts the need for the continued provision and publication of information in the City which is not restricted to that concerning the functions of the City Council".
It continues:
It would, therefore, clearly be of benefit if a way could be found for the publicity and information material to continue to be produced, albeit not, of course, by the city council who would not have the statutory powers".
Will Leicester Publicity Ltd. be prevented from taking over the statutory requirements which at present the local authority is carrying out? If not, there is a problem with the code and its relevance.
There is another point of concern. The chief executive of Leicester city council says:
I recommend that the objects of the proposed company should be orientated towards the provision of publicity and information upon issues or matters relating to or affecting the city of Leicester or any part of it or some or all of its inhabitants.
Surely the code should stop any other local organisation from being set up by the local authority to promote political propaganda and deny the ratepayers a rightful say in the administration of the local authority. That must be an abuse of ratepayers' money.

Mr. Straw: When the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) spoke, I had the impression that he thought that, if the amendments were agreed to, there would no longer be any code. I am glad to see that my impression was mistaken, and that these will continue to be provision for codes. The only effective difference is that, under clause 4 as originally drafted, authorities would have to have regard to the code, whereas under clause 4 as amended, the codes are there for the guidance of local authorities.
I hope that Conservative Members will not get too exercised on this issue, and I beg them to allow time to take its course in order to see whether the law works. It is wrong of any hon. Member to imply that a code for the guidance of local authorities can be ignored with impunity by those authorities. I do not believe that any authority or council official would for one second seek to ignore a code without clear knowledge of the consequences.
While it is true that a code for the guidance of local authorities may not of itself be sufficient to trigger a judicial review—one of the points raised in another place—none the less a transgression of a code laid down by statute for the guidance of local authorities would be prima facie evidence for legal advisers that there could have been a transgression of the principal statute, giving rise to legal action for judicial review. Moreover, one of the key sanctions provided by the Bill is not judicial review but resort to the district auditor. For that, the original complaint does not have to be couched in such detailed legal language as an application for judicial review.
We believe that the change is helpful. Conservative Members who think it is not helpful would be wise to read the debates in another place, because many peers experienced in law had complaints about the "have regard" trigger. While we believe that the change is beneficial, there is not a real and significant difference between it and what was there before. For once we should give the legislation time to work. Let us see what the practice is before rushing back with further legislation.

Mr. Waldegrave: With leave of the House. I welcome the plea of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) that we should give the code as presently drafted a chance. In so far as he is adding his weight to the voices of those who say that we should have serious discussions with local authorities about getting such a code drafted, I welcome that.
Basically I agree strongly with my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) that again this has knocked a very important part out of the structure of the Bill. No one has greater respect than I have for another place, but, like my hon. Friend, having read the debates in another place, I found myself none the wiser. Some noble Lords seemed to be of the view that the code, as we

originally envisaged it, would have brought all free speech to an end while others thought that it would have no effect at all. Therefore, there was not a consensus such as was sought by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes (Mr. Benyon).
I agree very much with my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Galley), whose amendment was passed in Committee—not at the time with the full enthusiasm of Ministers, but we came to live with it. We now have an anomaly. The effect of his amendment was to try to build up the power of the code, but the "have regard to" trigger has been knocked out.
We have "have regard to" triggers successfully in some statutes, such as section 60 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 and section 135(5) of the Local Government Act 1972. There is quite a close parallel. Local authorities are required to have regard to a number of matters, including the provision of structure plans, before deciding planning applications. This is a trigger with which local authorities and the statute law are able to deal. We shall have to come back to this in the autumn.
This is another case where I have to ask my hon. Friends to accept the amendment for the reason given by my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens)—that we want the Bill on the statute book now. Half a loaf is better than no bread, but it is only half a loaf.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 11 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 12, in page 3, line 31, leave out subsection (4).

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take the following: Lords amendment No. 13, in page 3, line 37, at end insert—
(5A) A code shall not be issued unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(5B) Where the Secretary of State proposes to revise a code he shall lay a draft of the proposed alterations before each House of Parliament and—

(a) he shall not make the revision until after the expiration of the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which the draft is laid (or, if copies are laid before each House of Parliament on different days, with the later of those days), and
(b) if within that period either House resolves that the alterations be withdrawn, he shall not proceed with the proposed alterations (but without prejudice to the laying of a further draft).

In computing the period of 40 days no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.
Sub-amendment (a), in subsection (5A), after "issued" insert "revised".
Sub-amendment (b), in subsection (5A), leave out "it" and insert "the code or revisions".
Sub-amendment (c), leave out subsection (5B).

Mrs. Rumbold: I am sure that hon. Members will agree with the principle behind amendment No. 12, which was discussed in the House on Report. We consider that a code of practice issued under clause 4 should be subject to the scrutiny of both Houses of Parliament.

Mr. Boyes: Amendment No. 13 and sub-amendments (a), (b) and (c) are in response to the Government's defeat in Standing Committee, when a combination of Opposition parties and some Conservative Members decided to vote with us, which I suspect was much more embarrassing to them than it was to us.
As originally drafted, the code of practice was not subject to any parliamentary procedure. The Opposition voted with what could be described in some newspapers as the "St. Andrews Mafia" to provide for the code of practice to be subject to an affirmative vote in the House of Commons. Because of bad drafting, which has been a feature of the Bill the House of Lords appears to have been left out. The Opposition amendment along the same lines in Standing Committee included the Lords.
The Government have conceded half the case for the affirmative procedure, by making the initial code of practice subject to that procedure, but illogically allowed only the negative procedure for revisions to the code. Government Members will no doubt claim that the process of revision is likely to be made more difficult if affirmative resolution orders are required for each change. We find that argument tenuous and unacceptable.
If the amendment is accepted as it stands, it will mean that the code originally subject to the affirmative procedure could be revised beyond recognition using negative instruments. Secondly, the comparative administrative inconvenience of the affirmative procedure is an asset in application to revisions to the codes. It might encourage the Department to ensure that, in consultation with local authority associations, it gets the first draft right. Sub-amendments (a), (b) and (c) make revisions subject to the affirmative procedure and delete the negative provisions. We are introducing necessary and essential amendments to the code of practice and we hope the Government will see the logic and sense in our argument.

Mr. Michael Fallon: In the arrangements for parliamentary scrutiny of the code there is, as the Opposition pointed out, a clear difference between the arrangements for scrutinising the initial code and those for scrutinising the revised code. I have some sympathy with the Opposition amendment (a) and the following amendments, but I would have less sympathy if my hon. Friend were able to assure me that the consultation involved in making sure the initial code is as good as it can be, will involve consultation not simply with local authority associations but with other groups who have an interest in this field, notably the National Union of Journalists. I understand that at the moment my hon. Friend is not prepared to consult the union before preparing the initial draft. The Government's case would be slightly stronger in resisting the proposed affirmative resolution for the revised code if the Government were prepared to consult more widely in preparing the initial code.

1 am

Mrs. Rumbold: The proposition of my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) would not present the Government with many difficulties and we would be prepared accordingly to widen the consultations for the code of practice.
I understand the logic of the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes), but his claim that

we are proposing a change that will reduce the flexibility of parliamentary procedure for the code is rather an odd one for him to make. There may be circumstances where a revision needs to be made fairly quickly, either because of an inadvertent and unnoticed error, or because of a provision of the code which in practice proved impractical or unworkable. In such cases the affirmative procedure would be too rigid. There is a precedent for having a different procedure for revisions in section 14 of the Local Government Finance (No. 2) Act, 1982 for a code of order practice. I commend to the House of Lords amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Clause 5

SEPARATE ACCOUNT OF EXPENDITURE ON PUBLICITY

Lords amendment No. 15, in page 4, line 13, at end insert—
(5) The Secretary of State may by order pros ide that subsection (1) does not apply to publicity or expenditure of a prescribed description.
(6) Before making an order the Secretary of State shall consult such associations of local authorities as appear to him to be concerned and any local authority with whom consultation appears to him to be desirable.
(7) An order shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

Read a Second time

Mr. Straw: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment,

(a) line 5, after 'Before', insert
'the coming into force of this section and before'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we will also discuss sub-amendment (b) in line 5, after 'order', insert 'under subsection (5) above'.

Mr. Straw: The Secretary of State is empowered by the amendment to provide by order that subsection (1), which is the principal provision of the clause, shall
not apply to publicity or expenditure of a prescribed description.
Before making an order, the Secretary of State is required to consult local authority associations.
We seek by the sub-amendments to widen the scope of that consultation so as to require the Secretary of State to consult before the coming into force of the clause as a whole, on such matters as the need to keep separate accounts of expenditure on publicity. The principle of consultation by the Department in general is accepted. Considering that the clause has serious ramifications for local authorities, it would be sensible to have prior consultation about the clause as a whole rather than just about orders which provide for exemptions.

Mrs. Rumbold: The amendment received wide support in the other place. The sub-amendments draw attention to the fact that we could theoretically introduce a requirement to keep a wide-ranging publicity account without making exclusions from that requirement and without consulting the local authority associations. We have no intention of acting in such a way. It would, clearly, not be sensible to bring clause 5 into effect until the scope of the account was finally determined. I urge the House to accept my undertaking that we shall engage in


a full process of consultation before introducing an order proposing exclusions of publicity or expenditure under clause 11 or bringing clause 5 into effect.

Mr. Straw: In the light of the Minister's remarks, I will not press the sub-amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lords amendment No. 15 agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 16 agreed to.

Clause 6

INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF PART II

Lords amendment No. 17, in page 4, line 43, at end insert—
(5) Nothing in this Part shall be construed as applying to anything done by a local authority in the discharge of their duties under Part VA of the Local Government Act 1972 or Part IIIA of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 (duty to afford public access to meetings and certain documents).

Mrs. Rumbold: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Straw: While we agree with the purpose of the amendment, I hope that the Minister will comment on the anxieties that local authorities and community relations councils have expressed about whether the provisions of the Bill could conflict with section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976. If the hon. Lady cannot deal with the point now, perhaps she will write to me.

Mrs. Rumbold: I will write to the hon. Gentleman on the subject.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 7

TRANSFER REQUIRES MORTGAGOR'S CONSENT

Lords amendment No. 18, in page 5, line 3, leave out "may" and insert "shall"

Mrs. Rumbold: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): It will be convenient to discuss at the same time Lords amendments Nos. 19 to 23.

Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This series does not appear in the consolidated list of amendments. Can you tell me where they can be found? I appreciate the nature of them and I do not think that they raise any matters of great substance, but they do not seem to be in the marshalled list of amendments.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is talking about Lords amendments Nos. 18, and 19 to 23. They are printed on the selection of amendments in front of me. The hon. Gentleman has the appropriate paper now, on which he will find the amendments.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 19 to 25 agreed to.

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That this House do meet on Thursday 27th March at half-past Nine o'clock, that no Questions be taken after half-past Ten o"clock, and that at half-past Three o'clock Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without putting any Question.—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]

PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER FOR ADMINISTRATION

Ordered:
That Standing Order No. 100 (Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration) be amended, as follows:
Line 9, leave out 'eight' and insert 'nine'.—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]

PETITIONS

Shops Bill

Mr. David Amess: I beg leave of the House to present a petition on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory) and the citizens of York in respect of maintaining Sunday as a day for family life away from six days of shopping.
On 19 December I presented a petition signed by 3,263 people. Tonight I present a petition signed by 2,037 people. I am assured by my hon. Friend that this demonstrates the overwhelming view of York electors who are concerned that seven days of trading will lead to a loss of employment, will not increase the totality of retail shopping and will break up family life, all against a background where there is no party manifesto mandate. The petition states:
Whilst acknowledging the need for the removal of the present anomalies in the Sunday trading laws, we urge that Sunday remain a day of worship, rest and relaxation for the benefit of family and community life.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House reject the need for any other deregulation.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Immigration (Guidelines)

Mr. Max Madden: Mr. Deputy-Speaker, despite the hour, I wish to present a petition signed by Councillor Mohammad Riaz of Hilton grove, Bradford 7 and 1,300 of my constituents.
The petition protests against draft guidelines issued by the Home Office and to be debated by the House later today,
relating to representation of Members of Parliament on immigration matters
representing
a major new restriction on the entry of people into the United Kingdom, especially those visiting from the New Commonwealth and Pakistan, and a reduction in the rights of MPs to represent their constituents.
The petitioners pray that this honourable House will not approve such guidelines, and I beg leave to present the petition.

To lie upon the Table.

DHSS Office, Coatbridge

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]

Mr. Tom Clarke: I feel sure that the House will need little by way of a reminder that this debate takes place about events in a hard-pressed constituency, Monklands West, which had had more than its fair share of unemployment, deprivation and disappointment, most notably and recently with the closure of Gartcosh steelworks, which is due to be completed at the end of this week.
Many in Scotland had hoped that the new Secretary of State's "new broom" would have prevented the kind of insensitivity to which I want to refer, and I have certainly drawn these matters to the right hon. Gentleman's attention. I take this opportunity to thank the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), for his interest in these matters.
I have to say that my constituents are not impressed with Government promises of jobs in high technology, which represent a small number of jobs in real terms, when here we have a specific Government commitment, given to me by the Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment seemingly being reneged upon in circumstances which, I have to tell the House, represent, unless the Minister is prepared to correct that tonight, not just a local disappointment but, frankly a national disgrace.
This debate is about a number of widely shared concerns. It is about the need for new office accommodation for the Department of Employment and the Department of Health and Social Security in Coatbridge, which the Minister long ago conceded are considerably overdue. It is about substantial public money which has already been spent in preparing the south circular road site—some estimate that that would be in the region of £600,000—and the profoundly serious questions which I put to the Minister.
How much will postponement—if that is what it is—cost the taxpayer? Even if the project does go ahead in May of this year is not it costing £450 a day, plus interest, between now and then—so why the delay? Worse still, can we be sure that the whole investment in this excercise has not been thrown away? Will the Minister assure us that it is a postponement and not a cancellation?
The most telling question of all, which my constituents are asking, is why, after the Minister gave a very firm assurance in writing to me, in December 1984 that
despite the tightness of funds
he had
authorised PSA to enter into a commitment for construction of new offices for DE and DHSS at the South Circular Road site
which he said his Department would
purchase on completion in 1986–87
there is now considerable doubt about that very firm commitment?
Where has the money gone? What did the Minister do—the House will expect him to accept his responsibilities—to monitor expenditure by the Property Service Agency to ensure that his promises, his objectives, and his commitments to an hon. Member are carried out?
I place on record the Minister's letter to me, dated 14 December 1984, when he wrote:
The delay over several years in providing a new office at Coatbridge for DE and DHSS has been a result of other pressures


on the Property Services Agency's Office and General Accommodation programme. These pressures will continue in the foreseeable future, but the deterioration in the condition of the existing accommodation is I know becoming very severe—and I recognise also that a decision now to relocate both Departments to the South Circular Road site could make a valuable contribution to the redevelopment of the area.
As the Minister also responsible for the inner cities, I believe it vital that Departments including PSA should bear in mind the importance of urban regeneration when determining their own programmes. I am pleased therefore to confirm that, despite the tightness of funds, I have now authorised PSA to enter into a commitment for construction of new offices for DE and DHSS at the South Circular Road site which we will purchase on completion in 1986/87.
I am copying this letter to Tom King, Norman Fowler and also George Younger".
I re-visited the existing offices just last week. What I found was most disturbing, for despite the very able management of Derek Marshall in DHSS and Pauline McMullen in DE and the vigilance of CPSA members whom I also met, the circumstances were quite unacceptable. Both buildings were constructed in the 19th century and have seen very little repairs or maintenance since then. At the DHSS I saw dampness, cracks in the ceiling, woodworm and, most unacceptable of all, members of the public huddled together in a little room and able to hear private matters discussed about other peoples' problems. The DE offers no more improvement and indeed there was also evidence of vermin infestation. All this in 1986, and to ask civil servants to stop their work to slop out water which has seeped into the building is simply ridiculous.
But the Minister need not take my word only for it. As far back as 6 August 1984—repeat 1984—Mr. M. Rowe, the Benefit Manager of Scotland, wrote to Mr. M.J. Mannings of the Property Services Agency saying this:
More than a year ago you described the Coatbridge UBO as 'shockingly indequate' … At that time funds were available for a start in the 1984/85 financial year but a large part of this year's allocation was diverted to another project primarily, as I understand it, because there seemed to be little prospect of early progress in Coatbridge. Against that background I am shocked by the implication in your letter that the lack of those funds may now delay the Coatbridge development.
The Coatbridge UBO has inevitably deteriorated since you expressed your concern early last year, and it can only deteriorate further. I am no expert but I would not expect the building to be capable of housing our operation through many more winters.
The House will understand my feelings when on 5 March 1986 I received a letter from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, who said:
As you know, I undertook in 1984 that PSA would purchase from the developer a new building on its completion. At that time the building was expected to cost £1·7 million and to be purchased, on its completion, in the financial year 1986–87.
Since then several things have happened to put my promise in jeopardy. The cost has gone up to £2·275 million; the date when funds are needed has slipped back to 1987–88; and the PSA has insufficient money in that year to meet expenditure on Coatbridge.
It was because I could not allow a contractual commitment to be entered into without funds being earmarked that I had to hold the project up at the last minute. I realise how disappointing this is for all concerned; and I can assure you that I am actively pursuing a solution with my ministerial colleagues in the hope that a new building can go ahead shortly. But at this point, I can do no more than promise to search for funds.
This setback to all our hopes and the doubts which have arisen have come as a shock and disappointment to everyone who has been involved in preparations for this project, including Monklands district council, whose

Director of Planning, Mr. Andrew Cowe, wrote to me a few days ago, and the Scottish Development Agency, whose input in preparing the site has been massive. And I have to say in all candour that the personnel of the PSA in Glasgow, who have been involved in these preparations, have every reason to feel greatly disheartened because of recent decisions.
Perhaps the strong feelings which have been expressed to me by my constituents and others is best summarised in a letter which I received on 14 February 1986 from the project consultants Males and McDonald of Edinburgh. They said:
In all good faith we have actively pursued this matter at the behest of the PSA's Glasgow office and we have now successfully obtained their agreement that the proposed building complies entirely with their strict guidelines for a development of this nature. Both the DHSS and DE Departments have formally approved the internal layout of the building and further, at the request of the PSA, full detailed planning permission and the necessary building warrant for phase 1 of the development have been obtained from Monklands District Council. A start on site by the nominated contractor was scheduled for 1 March with a completion date within a period of 12 months and this is following a considerable outlay by the SDA in the form of ground consolidation works.
It was, therefore, altogether astonishing to both ourselves and the PSA's Glasgow Office to hear ten days ago that funds for the project were not now forthcoming from London, when we had already been given the go ahead. In fact, at a meeting in the PSA's office in Glasgow on Monday 3 February, details of the proposed press release and media coverage were discussed.
In view of rumours which came to me in Whitehall, I must also place on record, extracts from a further letter from Mr. Ian McDonald of Males and McDonald to me dated 28 February 1986. He said:
You did mention that there had been some suggestion that, for our part, we may have been tardy in fitting in with the PSA's timetable for this requirement. I find this most surprising, bearing in mind the way we, and all of our Professional Team, have been closely liaising with the PSA throughout the pre-contract stages of this project.
The first point to make, therefore, is that there was a considerable amount of time and effort involved in consultations with the PSA before finally agreeing the exact size and internal layout of the building. Once this had been established, a full detailed planning application had to be submitted and I feel sure that both Mr. Andy Cowe, Director of Planning, and Mr. Jack Lyall, Principal Planning Officer, will confirm that this was not a straightforward application.
It should also be pointed out that at the outset, it was made clear to us that the PSA were working to a very tight budget and it was therefore of paramount importance to achieve savings wherever possible. This I am pleased to say we have been able to do, details of which have been fully reported in our last offer dated 9 December 1985. These costs would, of course, escalate owing to the present delay. For our part, therefore, it can be demonstrated that we have performed to the timescale and remit as laid down by the PSA. The Building Contract can be commenced immediately and the building ready for occupation within the time allowed".
So we had the situation in which the need for these offices had been well established, previous disappointments had been set aside, and everyone concerned—the SDA, Monklands district council, PSA in Scotland, MSC, the Department of the Environment, the DHSS and the project consultants, Males and McDonald—were all confidently preparing themselves for the contractor to start on site on 1 March 1986, when the bombshell came. What an insensitive bombshell it turned out to be, in an area where male unemployment stands at over 22 per cent. These offices serve the village of Gartcosh where male unemployment is over 30 per cent.
The amount of co-operation PSA has received has been colossal, as one would have expected in a constituency


like mine, which the Minister described as having problems similar to the inner cities. The local planning authority, Monklands district council, altered the lines of the new post office to fit in with DHSS plans, put in new roads, introduced compulsory purchase orders on old buildings near the site, and altered the main sewer. It was in no doubt—as was the SDA, which cleared the site and is preparing to purchase it from Monklands district council—that enormous public money was spent for the sole purpose of obtaining these new offices.
Even British Telecom fitted in with the PSA's proposals, and that was no easy task, given that the new building had to be constructed around 9,000 telephone lines serviced by BTs local exchange.
It is clear that everyone in my constituency, and indeed in Scotland, who knew anything about this project did his or her utmost to see it completed—and urgently. Nobody, but nobody stood in its way. Unless the Parliamentary Secretary sets things right tonight they have been rewarded by a kick in the teeth. "Caring capitalism" I am afraid, seems to have no place in Coatbridge. Until tonight, some anonymous official in Whitehall has dashed the hopes of my constituents with a stroke of the pen. We are expected to take all this on top of the industrial havoc which has been heaped upon us—once great industries have disappeared out of sight, we have seen coal and steel decimated culminating in the closures of Bedley and Cardowan, and Gartcosh itself encapsulated the blows that our people have had to endure. To abandon or even postpone the Minister's commitment to me is to add insult to injury. It is too much to ask, far too much to ask. I invite the hon. Gentleman to use the opportunity afforded by this debate to set this matter right—and soon.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young): The hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) has explained to the House, with restraint, the disappointment he feels—which I know is shared by his constituents and the staff at the offices concerned—at the decision of my Department not to proceed, for the time being, with the new development he described. At the outset he asked whether we were talking of cancellation. That is not the case. We have not cancelled the project. As I explained in my letter of 5 March, we hope to proceed when we have found the necessary resources. I can confirm that within Whitehall we are actively pursuing the possibility of a solution. It is still our intention that the new building should go ahead as soon as possible.
It might be helpful if I remind the House of the background to the problem that the hon. Gentleman has brought to the attention of the House. He has explained why he feels that it is imperative that the present buildings should be replaced. The office of the Department of Employment, some 7,200 sq ft, is situated at Main street. The Department of Health and Social Security has two offices, each of approximately 6,000 sq ft, at Bank street and Muiryhall street. Those three properties are Crown owned.
I readily acknowledge that the DHSS occupied property at Bank street is far from ideal. Even if it were not overcrowded it would benefit from major maintenance. The property occupied by the Department of Employment was built in 1927 not quiet Victorian but very old. The galvanised roof is in need of replacement, and

maintenance work has been concentrated on the interior of the building on the assumption that new accommodation was being planned. The DHSS office at Muiryhall will be used eventually to accommodate another Government Department and is in a tolerable condition.
The House will know that responsibility for provision of Government offices rests with my Department. For many years, it has been the intention of the Property Services Agency—and indeed of its predecessor body—to rehouse the DHSS and Department of Employment offices in Coatbridge. Unfortunately, there have never been sufficient funds to meet every priority demand, and the hon. Member might acknowledge that, even when his own party was in power, it did not find the means to build new offices for this purpose.
The Property Services Agency normally provides office accommodation for Government Departments either by Crown building or by leasing property on the open market. Unfortunately, no suitable leasehold property has been available at Coatbridge, or shows any prospect of coming on to the market. For that reason we had to consider a Crown building, but lack of funds to finance it and a number of other problems have meant that this job has had to be deferred much longer than anyone would have wished.
In 1984 Monklands district council, which owns the South Circular road site, agreed that it would sell the site to the Scottish Development Agency if its development plans went ahead. This site, although satisfactory in many respects, proved to be undermined and the Scottish Development Agency therefore spent substantial sums on site consolidation works in preparation for a new building.
I understand that the Monklands district council had engaged Males and McDonald as its developer for this part of the town, and local discussions involving the PSA, the Scottish Development Agency and Males and McDonald identified this site as a suitable location for a new building of some 33,000 sq ft to accommodate the Department of Employment and the DHSS, and bring them under one roof. The proposal was that the SDA would sell part of the site to the developer who would put up a building to the specification of the PSA, and would sell it on completion to form part of the Crown Estate.
The developer envisaged construction beginning in 1985, and being completed in 1986, thus bringing to an end a long period of unsatisfactory working conditions.
The hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to the letter I wrote to him in December 1984, and has understandably sought assurances that the plans for the new accommodation for the Department of Employment and the DHSS in Coatbridge will go ahead. When I wrote to him in December 1984, the total estimated cost of the scheme was £1·84 million. That amount would have been needed on completion of construction, in the financial year 1986–87. At that time, I had reason to believe that, despite the tightness of funds for the office accommodation programme, money would indeed by available for the Coatbridge project. In good faith, I said that the Property Services Agency would purchase the building on its completion in 1986–87.
Since I wrote in 1984, however, there have been changes in the circumstances surrounding the project. First, partly on account of planning difficulties, the project has slipped back, and payment consequently would not be required until 1987–88. Secondly, the estimated cost has


gone up by £435,000. This is an increase of nearly 25 per cent. between December 1984 and March 1986. Thirdly, there has been very severe pressure on Government funds for 1987–88 onwards. I should like to explain these reasons in more detail. First, the delay.

Mr. Clarke: rose—

Sir George Young: I will gladly give way when I have dealt with those three points. The original design was for a two-storey building, but during consultation about the development of the plans it was found that a three-storey building would better suit the needs of the DHSS; and so a three-storey design was substituted. Secondly, Monklands district council required specific external treatment for the new building and the developer's plans were adapted to take account of that requirement. These and other factors combined to delay the potential construction start date to March 1986.
Changes in the size of the building from the original concept, the extra expense of external treatment to meet the council's requirements and inflation between December 1984 and the present time all have combined to push up the estimated cost.

Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for confirming that the cost rose because when a two-storey becomes a three-storey building the cost will inevitably be greater.
Will the hon. Gentleman explain, however, what later happened to the money if it had been found by the time of his letter of December 1984?

Sir George Young: The resources were available in that financial year, but we are talking about finding the resources in a different financial year. In the meantime, pressure on my Department's funds has increased and we simply cannot carry on from one year to another commitments that have not been discharged. Because of the pressure on funds for the forthcoming year we cannot put the project in the programme. Because the resources were not available, I was unable to commit my Department to proceed.
The House will know about the pressure on public expenditure in the years ahead. The public expenditure programme follows an annual cycle. The size and nature of commitments in the office and general accommodation programme for 1987–88 and the years beyond are currently being considered and decisions will be reached later this year.
Inevitably, there are more demands on the programme than can be met, and the Property Services Agency must be guided in part by the views of other departments as to their operational priorities throughout the United Kingdom in deciding where funds should be placed. It was because of the doubt about funding that I was forced to hold up any contractual commitment to Coatbridge when I learnt about the slippage in time. Until I have had an opportunity to look at the whole programme for 1987–88, I cannot make any firm commitments.
I am fully conscious, however, that the working conditions for the staff of the DHSS and DE, and more particularly the waiting accommodation for the public who use these offices, are far from satisfactory. I can assure the House that I am exploring with my ministerial colleagues in the Departments concerned how best to improve matters. Ideally, I am looking for a long-term solution which will provide adequate conditions in Coatbridge for many years ahead; but I do not ignore short-term improvements if these can alleviate the situation.
The exact nature of any long-term solution must depend on having funds available, but there are various ways of providing the money and I am now considering and exploring these in some detail.
I welcome this opportunity to explain the position regarding the new accommodation at Coatbridge for the two Government Departments. Unavoidable delays—which I have outlined—increases in cost and shortage of funds in the year concerned have all contributed to the change in circumstances since I wrote to the hon. Member in December 1984. However, I assure him that I am fully conscious of the need to improve working conditions in Coatbridge and that I am actively pursuing with my colleagues ways of achieving this as soon as is practicable.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes to Two o' clock.